Docstoc

IR

Document Sample
IR Powered By Docstoc
					INSTITUTIONAL REPORT


        FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY
                              600 Park Street
                            Hays, KS 67601-4099
                             3/7/2010-3/10/2010




Type of Visit:
Continuing visit - Initial Teacher Preparation
Continuing visit - Advanced Preparation
                                                   Page 1



                                  Institutional Report
OVERVIEW


    This section sets the context for the visit. It should clearly state the mission of the institution.
 It should also describe the characteristics of the unit and identify and describe any branch
 campuses, off-campus sites, alternate route programs, and distance learning programs for
 professional school personnel.


   A. Institution

   A.1. What is the institution's historical context?

Fort Hays State University (FHSU), initially known as the Hays Normal School, opened June 23, 1902,
with thirty-four students, two faculty members, and nineteen courses. The university was initially
established to satisfy a need to create advanced educational facilities in the new region to serve a swiftly
growing population of settlers. Prior to the opening of the university, Fort Hays Military Reservation
land was slated to be abandoned by the United States government; the idea was conceived to transfer the
fort to a university for educational purposes. The transfer was approved and the Hays Normal School
opened. During the past one hundred and seven years, the university has undergone several name
changes. It is perhaps best remembered as Fort Hays Kansas State College, a name approved in 1931
after the Kansas Board of Regents (KBOR) granted the institution the right to confer liberal arts degrees
in 1930. No further name changes occurred until 1977, at which time the college became Fort Hays
State University with a specifically-defined mission. There is a long history of focus on teacher
preparation at FHSU - in 1910, the first four-year bachelor degree in education was approved.

In 1987, President Edward H. Hammond brought to FHSU a distinct focus on technology. The “high-
tech” philosophy has led to fully mediated classrooms across campus and a growing emphasis on
distance learning. The number of international students, both on-campus and abroad, has increased
through this emphasis on distance initiatives, creating a growth in student population numbers as well as
in the diversity of our students. Student population numbers have also increased with the
implementation of tuition strategies. Managing this growth is a current challenge for the institution. The
new brand statement: “Forward Thinking. World Ready.” exemplifies the university’s focus on
preparing students to be successful citizens in a world arena.

   A.2. What is the institution's mission?

In 1977, FHSU formally defined its long-understood mission as a regional university. The KBOR
approved a refined Mission, Role, and Scope document in 1986. Under the administration of President
Hammond, the Board approved further revisions of the Mission Statement in 1988. In 1991, the KBOR
requested a full review of all state higher education programs and new mission statements from each
university.

The KBOR approved the current FHSU Mission Statement in 1992. "Fort Hays State University, a
regional university principally serving western Kansas, is dedicated to providing instruction within a
computerized environment in the arts and sciences, business, education, the health and life sciences, and
agriculture.” The university's primary emphasis is undergraduate liberal education, which includes the
humanities, the fine arts, the social/behavioral sciences, and the natural/physical sciences. These
                                                  Page 2


disciplines serve as the foundation of all programs. Graduates are provided a foundation for lives of
ethical and civic responsibility to better understand global complexities and an American society of
increasing diversity.

Natural outgrowths of the university's primary emphasis include pre-professional, professional, master's,
and education specialist programs. A statewide strategic focus of the university is the integration of
computer and telecommunications technology within the educational environment and the workplace.

    A.3. What are the institution's characteristics [e.g., control (e.g., public or private) and type of
institution such as private, land grant, or HBI; location (e.g., urban, rural, or suburban area)]?

FHSU is a state, tax-assisted, liberal and applied arts university, established and maintained to serve the
people of Kansas. The campus is located in Hays, in the western portion of the state, and is largely rural.
As the economy and population of the Great Plains, western Kansas, and particularly that of 19
northwestern Kansas counties, experience challenges, the university and the College of Education and
Technology (COET) have begun working diligently and collaboratively to develop plans to preserve the
future of small schools and communities in the service area. Kansas census data from 2008 demonstrates
88.7% white citizenry, and specifically FHSU’s service area demographics demonstrates 98% white
citizenry, except for the 14 counties of southwestern Kansas that has a 27.5 % Hispanic population.
Additionally, 12% of all Kansas families with school-age children live below the poverty line. These
FHSU service area demographics create unique challenges.

The education unit fully accepts and embraces the responsibility to educate candidates about the concept
of diversity and its unique application to the profession of education, in spite of demographic constraints
and the impact they have on diversity within the college. In recent years, the university and unit have
become more successful in recruiting, admitting, and retaining a diverse student body due in part to
changing demographics in the student population. Online programs have greatly increased candidate
diversity.

    A.4. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the
institutional context may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many
exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]

   B. The unit

   B.1. What is the professional education unit at your institution and what is its relationship to
other units at the institution that are involved in the preparation of professional educators?
FHSU enrolls over 11,000 students in on-campus and virtual coursework from throughout Kansas, 48
other states, and more than 28 foreign countries. The COET is responsible for coordinating all programs
offered for the initial and advanced preparation of teachers and other school professionals (OSP). The
COET enrolls approximately 900 undergraduate students and 500 graduate students each semester. Each
year, the university awards approximately 130 bachelor degrees to graduates of three undergraduate
programs, and 75 master's degrees to graduates of seven master's and education specialist degree
programs. Approximately 75 new freshmen have been admitted to the college for the fall of 2009, in the
areas of Pre-Education Elementary and Technology Studies/Pre-Education. Additionally, over 200
students have transferred to the COET from other institutions this past year.

The university is defined by four academic colleges (Arts and Sciences, Business and Leadership,
Education and Technology, and Health and Life Sciences). In addition, the university encompasses a
Virtual College dedicated to distance education and a Graduate School focusing on advanced programs,
                                                                             Page 3


grantsmanship, and research. There is a close working relationship between the COET and the other
three academic colleges on campus. It is seen as a joint responsibility to prepare educators and, as such,
faculty serve jointly on governance and advisory committees.

   B.2. How many professional education faculty members support the professional education
unit? Please complete Table 1 or upload your own table at Prompt B.7 below.

                                                               Table 1
                                                    Professional Education Faculty



                                                                      Part-time at the Institution & Graduate Teaching Assistants
   Professional      Full-time in the Full-time in the Institution,                                                                  Total # of Professional
                                                                         the Unit (e.g., adjunct    Teaching or Supervising Clinical
 Education Faculty         Unit        but Part-time in the Unit                                                                       Education Faculty
                                                                                 faculty)                       Practice
Number of
                           32                      17                             17                               0                           66
faculty


    B.3. What programs are offered at your institution to prepare candidates for their first license
to teach? Please complete Table 2 or upload your own table at Prompt B.7 below.

                                                      Table 2
                          Initial Teacher Preparation Programs and Their Review Status


                                                                           Agency or
                                                                          Association         Program Report           State Approval    Status of National
                      Award Level (e.g.,         Number of
                                                                           Reviewing           Submitted for            Status (e.g.,     Recognition of
       Program          Bachelor's or        Candidates Enrolled
                                                                        Programs (e.g.,       National Review           approved or         Programs by
                         Master's)              or Admitted
                                                                       State, NAEYC, or          (Yes/No)               provisional)          NCATE
                                                                        Bd. of Regents)
 Agriculture         Bachelor's             1                         KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 Art                 Bachelor's             24                        KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 Biology             Bachelor's             12                        KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 Chemistry           Bachelor's             2                         KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 Early Childhood
                     Bachelor's             9                         KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 Unified
 Earth and Space
                     Bachelor's             1                         KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 Science
 Elementary          Bachelor's             128                       KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 English: 6-12       Bachelor's             27                        KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 Foreign
 Languages
                     Bachelor's             5                         KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 (Spanish/
 German)
 Health              Endorsement            16                        KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 History and
                  Bachelor's                15                        KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 Government: 6-12
 Journalism          Endorsement Only 1                               KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 Mathematics: 6-12 Bachelor's               27                        KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 Music: General      Bachelor's             0                         KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 Music:
                     Bachelor's             2                         KSDE                  No                    Approved              No
 Instrumental
                                                                         Page 4


 Music: Vocal          Bachelor's           0                     KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Physical Education Bachelor's              16                    KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Physics               Bachelor's           1                     KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Psychology            Bachelor's           0                     KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Special Education:
                    Bachelor's              74                    KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Adaptive
 Technology
                       Bachelor's           17                    KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Studies - General
 Technology
 Studies -             Bachelor's           17                    KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Communication
 Technology
 Studies -             Bachelor's           17                    KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Production
 Technology
 Studies -
 Transportation,       Bachelor's           17                    KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Power, and
 Energy
 Middle History        Bachelor's           0                     KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Middle
                       Bachelor's           0                     KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Mathematics
 Middle Science        Bachelor's           0                     KSDE               No                 Approved           No
                       Post Bachelor
 Restricted            Alternative Route    97                    KSDE               No                 Approved           No
                       (T2T)



   B.4. What programs are offered at your institution to prepare advanced teacher candidates and
other school professionals? Please complete Table 3 or upload your own table at Prompt B.7 below.

                                                     Table 3
                              Advanced Preparation Programs and Their Review Status


                                                                      Agency or
                                                                     Association      Program Report      State Approval   Status of National
                       Award Level (e.g.,       Number of
                                                                      Reviewing        Submitted for       Status (e.g.,    Recognition of
        Program          Master's or        Candidates Enrolled
                                                                   Programs (e.g.,    National Review      approved or        Programs by
                         Doctorate)            or Admitted
                                                                  State, NAEYC, or       (Yes/No)          provisional)         NCATE
                                                                   Bd. of Regents)
 Building
                       Master's             55                    KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Leadership
                       Post MS
 District Leadership                        29                    KSDE               No                 Approved           No
                       Endorsement
                       Post Bachelor's
 ESOL                                       20                    KSDE               No                 Approved           No
                       Endorsement
 Library Media         MSE +
                                            41                    KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Specialist            Endorsement
                       MSE +
 Reading Specialist                         31                    KSDE               No                 Approved           No
                       Endorsement
 School Counselor      Master's             63                    KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 School
                       Ed Specialist        13                    KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Psychologist
 Special Education: Post Bachelor's
                                            153                   KSDE               No                 Approved           No
 Adaptive           Endorsement
                                                      Page 5


 Special Education: Post Bachelor's
                                      4        KSDE            No             Approved       No
 Gifted             Endorsement


     B.5. Which of the above initial teacher preparation and advanced preparation programs are
offered off-campus or via distance learning technologies? What alternate route programs are
offered? [In addition to this response, please review the "Institutional Information" in AIMS and,
if updating is needed, contact NCATE with details about these programs.]
 Early childhood unified and all advanced programs except counseling and school psychology can be
 completed online. Elementary education, with or without the special education minor, can be completed
 either online or on-campus, or a combination of both. Online programs utilize the same curriculum as
 the programs offered on campus. All course objectives and assessments are the same. Most courses are
 taught by FHSU faculty through a variety of hybrid delivery modes including face-to-face, interactive
 conferencing, and online.

Transition to Teaching, the unit’s alternative route program, is offered online with the exception of one
on-campus course. The program is for candidates who hold a bachelor degree (or higher) or equivalent
coursework in the teaching content area. Miiddle level, secondary, and P-12 teaching areas are eligible
by state regulation. A teaching contract, signed with a Kansas school district for the eligible subject area,
is also required.

    B.6. (Continuing Visit Only) What substantive changes have taken place in the unit since the
last visit (e.g., added/dropped programs/degrees; significant increase/decrease in enrollment; major
reorganization of the unit, etc.)? [These changes could be compiled from those reported in Part C
of the AACTE/NCATE annual reports since the last visit.]
 New leadership is evident throughout the unit. Dean Debbie Mercer served as interim dean for one year
 and accepted the permanent position in 2006. Also since 2005, Dr. Kathy Dale has served as the interim
 and now assistant dean and the accreditation coordinator. Further, new department chairs in teacher
 education and advanced education programs have accepted roles since the last review.

Since the previous visit, the College spent time closely examining the mission and the organizational
structure. Reorganization changes were designed to increase efficiency and to enhance collegial sharing
through focused dialogue of like programs (i.e., initial program faculty, graduate faculty, and
technology). Programs are now organized into a three-department framework. First, Teacher Education
houses undergraduate programs focusing on initial teacher preparation. Early childhood, elementary, and
secondary programs share courses and faculty. The Transition to Teaching alternative pathway program
is also housed in Teacher Education. Second, the Advanced Education Programs Department bonds all
graduate programs together into one department. Programs in Special Education, Building and District
Leadership, School Counseling, ESOL, Reading Specialist, and Library Media Specialist involve faculty
in collaborative planning and development. The third department, Technology Studies, involves
technology related undergraduate programs which focus on the preparation of teachers and industry
personnel. We believe this structure enhances our progress toward our central mission.

Coordination of instructional programs offered in each department is the responsibility of the
department chair. Each chair oversees the day-to-day departmental operations and serves as a liaison
between the faculty and the dean. The dean of the college provides overall coordination and
administration of all teacher education and OSP programs.

    B.7. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the unit
context may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits
electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]
                                                  Page 6



                           General Background and Conceptual Framework Exhibits

See Attachments panel below.


CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK


   This section provides an overview of the unit's conceptual framework(s). The overview should
 include a brief description of the framework(s) and its development.


    C.1. How does the unit's conceptual framework address the following structural elements?
[Please provide a summary here. A more complete description of the conceptual framework should
be available as an electronic exhibit.]

           the vision and mission of the unit
           philosophy, purposes, goals, and institutional standards of the unit
           knowledge bases, including theories, research, the wisdom of practice, and educational
            policies that drive the work of the unit
           candidate proficiencies related to expected knowledge, skills, and professional
            dispositions, including proficiencies associated with diversity and technology, that are
            aligned with the expectations in professional, state, and institutional standards
           summarized description of the unit's assessment system



Vision of the Unit:
"Professional educators prepared at Fort Hays State University will have the knowledge, skills, and
commitment to ensure excellence in teaching while actively investing in their own professional
development."

Mission of the Unit:

Mission: The mission of the education unit at FHSU is "to prepare for schools, businesses, and industry
in a global society." This preparation is based on technical skills, knowledge acquired through liberal
arts and sciences, professional knowledge, and clinical experiences described by the Professional
Educator model (PE) that frames the CF. Instructional programs of the unit are offered through four
colleges and the Virtual College. All elementary and secondary programs leading to teacher licensure
are coordinated through the College of Education and Technology.

Philosophy of the Unit:

The unit's philosophy that "all students can learn in a fair and equitable learning environment."

Purpose of the unit:

FHSU prepares professional educators for success in P-12 schools through a liberal education that
combines an appreciation for pedagogical theory and research.

Goals of the Unit:
                                                   Page 7



Goal I: The Professional Educator (PE) is liberally educated. The PE develops the capacity and
disposition to draw on diverse resources from the liberal arts and sciences to answer complex questions
based on ethical considerations. S/he develops the capacity and disposition for self-criticism healthy
living, and an understanding of the importance of diversity.

Goal II: The Professional Educator, reflecting a commitment to P-12 learning, assumes a professional
role within the organizational system of the school. The PE interprets and implements regulatory,
professional, and ethical standards, utilizing the resources from professional organizations and the
knowledge bases from social, historical and philosophical foundations.

Goal III: The Professional Educator combines an understanding of relevant academic disciplines with an
appreciation for pedagogical theory and research. The PE develops teaching strategies based on the
unique structure and method of inquiry of her/his particular discipline and current research-based
pedagogy.

Goal IV: The Professional Educator respects and values all persons and provides a fair and equitable
learning environment for all learners learners. The PE implements teaching strategies and curriculum
designs that accommodate the special needs of individual learners as well as the cultural differences that
emanate from a multicultural environment.

Goal V: The Professional Educator appreciates the importance of integrating appropriate technology into
the educational process to enhance student learning. The PE demonstrates a knowledge of educational
technology in planning, designing, delivering, and evaluating effective learning experiences.

Goal VI: The Professional Educator values and demonstrates knowledge and use of multiple assessment
and diagnostic techniques. The PE utilizes the appropriate measurement theories and information
sources in evaluating the educational needs and achievements of all students.

Goal VII: The Professional Educator uses reflection as a tool for self-growth, program assessment, and
instructional effectiveness. The PE uses self-reflection as well as the reflection of others such as peers,
mentors, students, supervisors, and parents to effect positive changes in curriculum, instruction, and
classroom management.

Institutional Standards of the Unit:

Unit standards are articulated in the CF and focus on the elements of Liberal Education, Pedagogy,
Academic Discipline, Diverse Learners, Technology, Assessment, and Reflection. All program courses
and key unit assessments are aligned with the CF elements.

The CF is aligned with the Academic Quality Improvement Process (AQIP) goals of the institution and
the unit goals. The CF is expressed clearly and succinctly throughout the COET teacher preparation
programs and other school professionals (OSP). It provides direction for programs, courses, instruction,
candidate performance, scholarship, service, and unit accountability. The CF was developed in
coordination with the Kansas State Department of Education Professional Education Standards.

Unit Knowledge Bases:

The CF integrates and assimilates theory, practical experience, instruction, and reflections. It provides
cohesion across unit curricula, field and clinical experiences, and regular assessment as outlined in the
unit plan. The framework emphasizes the importance of candidates working with English Language
Learners and students with disabilities during field experiences. It serves to focus the goals and activities
                                                  Page 8



of professional development for unit faculty.

The CF is: a) knowledge and theory-based, b) articulated clearly, c) shared across all COET disciplines
and levels, d) coherent across programs and between levels to create a sense of “connectedness”, and e)
consistent with the University’s mission. The CF is reviewed annually at the unit-wide data retreat, and
reviewed continuously through the CF committee. Stakeholders, candidates, faculty and P-12 partners
are represented on the CF committee and at the annual data retreat.

Disposition Proficiencies:

Candidates in initial and advanced programs demonstrate professional dispositions in their roles as
professional educators during coursework and clinical/field experiences that are consistent with the ideal
of fairness and the belief that all students can learn.

The CF is based on behaviors consistent with professional education roles in the following areas:

1. Multiple perspectives from the disciplines and ongoing professional discourse including the belief that
all students can learn.
•Is an independent learner.
•Draws on diverse resources.
•Is familiar with research and efforts of professional organizations in their field.
•Demonstrates awareness of new ideas.
•Acts ethically.
•Embraces self-criticism, healthy living, and appreciation of diversity.
•Is tolerant of, and responsive to, ideas and views of others.
•Is respectful of and responsive to individual differences.

2. Inclusion of students, families, communities, and cultures in the educational process.
•Is sensitive to students and families from different cultures and with special needs.
•Includes parent or guardian in planning for students’ success.
•Considers community factors when planning.

3. Development of critical thinking and independent problem solving.
•Is an independent learner.
•Is curious and willing to experiment with new ideas and techniques.
•Demonstrates awareness of new idea.s
•Makes critical choices based on logic and the scientific method.
•Seeks ways to solve problems using various tools and resources.

4. Planning educational strategies based on individual student growth in the areas of cognitive,
emotional, linguistic, social fairness and physical development.
•Demonstrates belief that all students can learn at their potential.
•Provides encouraging feedback to all students.
•Responds to the needs of all learners.
•Provides fair and equitable learning opportunities for all students.
•Values ongoing, appropriate and developmentally sound assessment to guide instruction.
•Considers backgrounds, interests, attitudes of all students when planning.

5. Refinement of practices based on reflection, multiple and ongoing assessment strategies, and learning.

•Seeks opportunities to learn about self.
                                                   Page 9



•Is accepting of constructive feedback from others.
•Values ongoing, appropriate assessment.
•Uses results from assessment to revise instructional strategies.
•Recognizes personal limitations and strengths and seeks ways of self-improvement.
•Considers backgrounds, interests, attitudes of all students when planning.

6. Professional and ethical standards based on behaviors consistent with professional education roles
(e.g. attire, preparation, participation, punctuality, appropriate language usage, communication skills,
and interpersonal relationships.)
•Is punctual and regularly attends classes.
•Communicates in a professional manner.
•Maintains positive attitudes during and outside of class.
•Is honest and trustworthy in communications and interactions with others.
•Demonstrates ethical behavior and maintains confidentiality.
•Has professional appearance.

7. Importance of integrating technology in planning, designing, delivering and evaluating effective
learning experiences.
•Uses technology in planning instruction to support learning.
•Uses a variety of instructional strategies.
•Addresses variations in learning styles with appropriate instructional technology.
•Uses multiple, ongoing, and authentic assessment.

Diversity Proficiencies:

The unit defines diversity as: Differences among groups of people and individuals based on culture,
ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, migrant status, religion, sexual
orientation, and geographical area.

The Professional Educator:
1. Recognizes and explains the nature of diversity in the community to inform instruction.

2. Understands and can articulate characteristics and attributes of student populations which contribute to
commonality and differences.

3. Recognizes and applies appropriate educational options for all students.

4. Understands and applies results of assessment data for educational placement and accommodations.

5. Utilizes appropriate technology to gather and disseminate information.

6. Reflects on diversity experiences from a variety of perspectives (emotional, informational, and
developmental) for diagnostic purposes and self-growth.

Technology Proficiencies:

Unit technology proficiencies are aligned with National Educational Technology Standards for
Administrators (NETS*A), and National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS*T).

The Professional Educator:
1. Appropriately and effectively uses current and emerging digital tools to gather, analyze, and present
                                                  Page 10


information.

2. Designs diverse learning activities and learning-centered environments that incorporate digital tools
and resources.

3. Analyzes technology infrastructures and technology-based systems for teaching, assessment,
management, or operations.

4. Communicates and collaborates with students, colleagues, parents, and community members using
digital tools.

5. Advocates, models, and teaches safe, legal, and ethical use of digital information and technology.

Assessment system of the unit

The FHSU Quality Assurance System Data Flow and Analysis (STARS) is the unit’s electronic analysis
system for both initial and advanced programs. The STARS system is an electronic data warehouse that
stores candidate assessment information at the program level, transition point information at the unit
level, and program and unit improvement plans.

Program level contact people are assigned who collaborate with program faculty to collect and analyze
candidate data. Program contact people are responsible for submitting program information indexed by
candidate to the data manager of STARS each semester.

Program faculty meet annually to analyze program efficiency, candidate performance, placement, and
advising. A program improvement plan is developed that identifies areas of concern, sets program
improvement goals, and examines candidate performance trends. Program contact people submit
improvement plans to the STARS data manager at the end of each spring semester. Program data then
becomes accessible through STARS to KSDE/NCATE committees, programs, and other requests
approved by the dean for access.

The unit’s assessment committee analyzes program and unit information submitted to STARS.
Information is used to plan the unit's initial and advanced data retreats, develop initial and advanced
program improvement plans, and provide data to standards committees for consideration and action.

    C.2. (Continuing Visits Only) What changes have been made to the conceptual framework since
the last visit?

The Professional Educator Conceptual Framework is continuously reviewed by the conceptual
framework committee to update and revise the framework document. The CF committee monitors
changes in professional dispositions outlined in professional, state, and institutional standards and
continuously realigns the Professional Educator Conceptual Framework. Key changes have been made
to the conceptual framework since the previous accreditation visit:

1. Development of operational definitions for each of the seven goals of the CF. Operational definitions
include detailed descriptions of candidate knowledge, performance and dispositions related to each CF
goal, as well as the appropriate unit assessment(s) for the CF goal.

2. Development of a CF handbook for faculty and candidates.

3. The CF committee has identified the following improvement goals for the next cycle: a)
                                                  Page 11


institutionalizing training processes for faculty and candidates on dispositions and CF, b) identifying
gaps in the strategic processes that monitor collection of disposition data in all programs, and c) working
with program coordinators and faculty to realign disposition collection processes.

    C.3. (First Visits Only) How was the conceptual framework developed and who was involved in
its development?


   C.4. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the
conceptual framework may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access
many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]

STANDARDS


    This section is the focus of the institutional report. A description of how the unit meets each
 standard element must be presented. Significant differences among programs should be
 described as the response is written for each element under subheadings of initial teacher
 preparation, advanced teacher preparation, and other school professionals. Significant
 differences among programs on the main campus, in off-campus programs, in distance learning
 programs, and in alternate route programs should be identified. Links to key exhibits to
 support the descriptions may be attached to the last prompt of each element.


Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions


    Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals know and
 demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, pedagogical and
 professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students
 learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

 Directions When Programs Have Been Reviewed Nationally or by a Similar State Review

 To reduce burden and duplication, units have fewer reporting requirements for Standard1
 when programs have been submitted for national review or similar state review. These review
 processes cover many of the elements in Standard 1. For programs that have been submitted for
 national review or similar state review, units are asked to report in the IR only the following
 information:

             State licensing test data for Element 1a (content knowledge for teacher candidates)
              and Element 1e (knowledge and skills for other school professionals)
             Assessment Data for Element 1c (professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills)
             Assessment data for Element 1g (dispositions)
             Results of follow-up studies of graduates and employers (all standards elements)



 Because program standards do not generally cover general professional knowledge and skills
 nor professional dispositions, the unit must respond to all of the prompts in Elements 1c
                                                                          Page 12



 (Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates) and 1g
 (Professional Dispositions for All Candidates) regardless of whether programs have been
 submitted for national or state review.

 The prompts for each element in the IR include reminders of when data for these programs
 need not be included. The term "similar state review" refers to state review processes that
 require institutions to submit assessments and assessment data for evaluation and/or approval.
 For more information on "similar state review," click on the HELP button at the top right
 corner of your screen.



1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates. [In this section the unit must address (1) initial
teacher preparation programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels and, if the institution
offers them, (2) licensure and non-licensure graduate programs for teachers who already hold a
teaching license.]

    1a.1. What are the pass rates of teacher candidates in initial teacher preparation programs on
state tests of content knowledge for each program and across all programs (i.e., overall pass rate)?
Please complete Table 4 or upload your own table at Prompt 1a.5 below. [This information could
be compiled from Title II data submitted to the state or from program reports prepared for
national review.]

                                                  Table 4
                    Pass Rates on Content Licensure Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation


For Period:                                                                   9/01/2007 - 8/31/2008


                Program                      Name of Content Licensure Test         # of Test Takers        % Passing State Licensure Test
 Overall Pass Rate for the Unit
 (across all initial teacher preparation                                      227                      91.19%
 programs)
 Agriculture                               Agriculture                        1                        100%
 Art                                       Art: Content Knowledge             8                        100%
 Biology                                   Biology: Content Knowledge         13                       100%
 Business                                  Business Education                 18                       100%
 Chemistry                                 Chemistry: Content Knowledge       2                        100%
 Early Childhood                           Education of Young Children        0                        --
                                           Earth and Space Science: Content
 Earth and Space Science                                                    4                          100%
                                           Knowledge
                                           Elementary Education:
 Elementary                                                                   61                       93.44%
                                           Curriculum, Instruction, As.
                                           English Language, Literature, and
 English                                                                     10                        90.00%
                                           Composition
 Health                                    Health Education                   4                        75.00%
 Journalism                                No Test for this Program
 Mathematics                               Mathematics: Content Knowledge 14                           85.71%
 Spanish                                   Spanish: Content Knowledge         14                       50.00%
 German                                    German: Content Knowledge          0                        --
                                                              Page 13


 Music                         Music: Content Knowledge           0           --
                               Physical Education: Content
 Physical Education                                               12          100%
                               Knowledge
 Physics                       Physics: Content Knowledge         5           80.00%
 Psychology                    Psychology                         0           --
                               Social Studies: Content
 History and Government                                           11          100%
                               Knowledge
                               Education of Exceptional
 Special Education: Adaptive                                      21          90.48%
                               Students: Core Knowledge
                               Education of Exceptional
 Special Education: Adaptive                                      19          94.74%
                               Students: Mild to Mod
 Technology Studies            Technology Education               6           83.33%
 History: Middle 5-9           Middle School Social Studies       4           100%
 Mathematics: Middle 5-9       Middle School Mathematics          0           --
 Science: Middle 5-9           Middle School Science              0           --


    1a.2. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from other key assessments indicate that
candidates in initial teacher preparation programs demonstrate the content knowledge delineated
in professional, state, and institutional standards? [Data for initial teacher preparation programs
that have been nationally reviewed or reviewed through a similar state review do not have to be
reported here. Summarize data here only for programs not already reviewed. A table summarizing
these data could be attached at Prompt 1a.5 below.]
 The COET programs are reviewed by the Kansas State Department of Education and include
 assessments, scoring guides, and assessment data for the state review.

    1a.3. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from key assessments indicate that
advanced teacher candidates demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the content knowledge
delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards? [Data for advanced teacher
preparation programs that have been nationally reviewed or reviewed through a similar state
review do not have to be reported here. Summarize data here only for programs not already
reviewed. A table summarizing these data could be attached at Prompt 1a.5 below.]
 The COET programs are reviewed by the Kansas State Department of Education and include
 assessments, scoring guides, and assessment data for the state review.

    1a.4. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about graduates'
preparation in the content area? If survey data are being reported, what was the response rate? [A
table summarizing the results of follow-up studies related to content knowledge could be attached
at Prompt 1a.5 below. The attached table could include all of the responses to your follow-up
survey to which you could refer the reader in responses on follow-up studies in other elements of
Standard 1.]

The Graduate Perception Survey (GPS: 2 yrs. out) results for Pedagogical Theory and Research indicate
a minimum of 70% of initial graduates rate their level of proficiency as “Above Average” or “Far Above
Average.” Because of the limited responses (n = 10) to this survey, it was not possible to disaggregate
the data according to specific elementary and secondary programs (16% response rate). The table
contains data reported for all initial programs, with the exception of the transition-to-teaching (T2T)
program. Data collection for the transition-to-teaching (T2T) program began in fall 2008.

The Education Benchmarking, Inc. (EBI) Survey (program completion) of graduates also verifies high
candidate satisfaction of content area preparation (response rate=97.9%, n=91). (See 1e3 for detail of
                                                  Page 14


advanced program survey)

The GPS results for Pedagogical Theory and Research indicate a minimum of 75% of all advanced
program graduates rate their level of proficiency as “Above Average” or “Far Above Average.” Because
of the limited responses (n = 12) to this survey, it was not possible to disaggregate the data according to
specific advanced teacher and other school professional programs. The table contains data reported for
all advanced programs (16% response rate).

The Employers and Mentors Perception Survey (EMPS: 2 years out) results for Pedagogical Theory and
Research indicate a minimum of 75% of mentors and employers best described the current status of all
unit graduates as “Above Average” or “Far Above Average.” Because of the limited responses (n = 16)
to this survey, the disaggregation of the data according to specific programs was not reported (59.3%
response rate). The table contains data reported for the entire unit. Future unit improvement goals
include increasing the response rate to provide disaggregation of data according to initial teacher
education graduates, advanced teacher education graduates, and other school professional graduates.

   1a.5. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the content
knowledge of teacher candidates may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to
access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-5) should be uploaded.]
                                             Standard 1 Exhibits

See Attachments panel below.


1b. Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates. [In this section the unit
must address (1) initial teacher preparation programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels
and, if the institution offers them, (2) licensure and non-licensure graduate programs for teachers
who already hold a teaching license.]

    1b.1. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from key assessments indicate that
candidates in initial teacher preparation programs demonstrate the pedagogical content knowledge
and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards? [Data for initial teacher
preparation programs that have been nationally reviewed or reviewed through a similar state
review do not have to be reported here. Summarize data here only for programs not already
reviewed. A table summarizing these data could be attached at Prompt 1b.4 below.]
 The COET programs are reviewed by the Kansas State Department of Education and include
 assessments, scoring guides, and assessment data for the state review.

    1b.2. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from key assessments indicate that
advanced teacher candidates know and apply theories related to pedagogy and learning, are able to
use a range of instructional strategies and technologies, and can explain the choices they make in
their practice. [Data for advanced teacher preparation programs that have been nationally
reviewed or reviewed through a similar state review do not have to be reported here. Summarize
data here only for programs not already reviewed. A table summarizing these data could be
attached at Prompt 1b.4 below.]
 The COET programs are reviewed by the Kansas State Department of Education and include
 assessments, scoring guides, and assessment data for the state review.


   1b.3. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about graduates'
                                                   Page 15


preparation in pedagogical content knowledge and skills? If survey data have not already been
reported, what was the response rate? [If these survey data are included in a previously attached
table, refer the reader to that attachment; otherwise, a table summarizing the results of follow-up
studies related to pedagogical content knowledge and skills could be attached at Prompt 1b.4
below.]
 The GPS results for Goal III Pedagogical Theory and Research indicate a minimum of 70% of initial
 teacher education graduates rate their level of proficiency as “Above Average” or “Far Above
 Average" (response rate reported in 1a4).

The EBI survey verifies the long-term survey findings. Initial candidates satisfaction statistically rated
higher than all other institutions in compared to in the survey. Trend data shows and overall increase in
learning theories, pedagogy/teaching techniques, including subject matter subgroups (response
rates=97.9%, n=91).

The GPS results for Goal III Pedagogical Theory and Research indicate a minimum of 75% of all
advanced program graduates rate their level of proficiency as “Above Average” or “Far Above
Average.” The Employers and Mentors Survey (2 years out) results for Goal III Pedagogical Theory and
Research indicate a minimum of 75% of mentors and employers best described the current status of all
unit graduates as “Above Average” or “Far Above Average” (response rates-1a4).

An Advanced Programs Graduate Survey (APGS), comparable to the EBI used in initial programs, has
been developed and piloted in spring 2008 and spring 2009. Implementation and baseline data will occur
in spring 2010. This instrument will enable the unit to assess all candidates' program preparation
satisfaction level at the completion of their program.

    1b.4. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the
pedagogical content knowledge of teacher candidates may be attached here. (Because BOE
members should be able to access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-
5) should be uploaded.)

1c. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates. [In this section the
unit must address (1) initial teacher preparation programs at the undergraduate and graduate
levels and, if the institution offers them, (2) licensure and non-licensure graduate programs for
teachers who already hold a teaching license.]

    1c.1. What data from key assessments indicate that candidates in initial teacher preparation
and advanced teacher preparation programs demonstrate the professional and pedagogical
knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards to facilitate
learning? [A table summarizing these data could be attached at Prompt 1c.5 below.]

The unit's educational programs go through a state approval process in which data is reported that
indicates candidates in initial and advanced teacher preparation programs demonstrate the professional
and pedagogical knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards to
facilitate learning.

The unit submitted 33 education programs to the KSDE for approval. All 33 programs received approval
in October, 2009. The key assessments are detailed in these program reports.

In addition to state program reports, initial level, candidates apply their professional and pedagogical
knowledge and skills as required by professional, state, and institutional standards to facilitate learning.
Pre-service professionals consider school, family, and community contexts in which they work and
                                                  Page 16


consider the prior experience of students to develop meaningful learning experiences. The education unit
relies on data from the PRAXIS II: Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT); the mean ratings for
Item II Professional Role from the GPS; and the mean ratings for Item II Professional Role from the
EMPS. Initial teacher candidate scores from the PRAXIS II Principles of Learning and Teaching (2007-
2008) include average pass rates of 97% (K-6, n = 72) and 93% (7-12, n = 71), with a minimum passing
score of 161.

The GPS is administered to initial teacher education program graduates as a review of the professional
and pedagogical knowledge and skills. The survey results for Goal II Professional Role indicate a
minimum of 80% of initial teacher education graduates rate their level of proficiency as “Above
Average” or “Far Above Average.” Because of the limited responses (n = 10) to this survey, it was not
possible to disaggregate the data according to specific elementary and secondary programs. The table
contains data reported for all Initial Programs. Candidates preparing to assume roles in advanced teacher
programs must demonstrate adequate understanding of the professional knowledge expected in their
fields and as delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. They must know their students,
families and communities; use current research to inform their practices; use technology in their
practices; and support student learning through their professional services (response rates noted in 1a4).

As a review of the professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, the GPS is administered to
advanced program graduates. The survey results for Goal II Professional Role indicate a minimum of
75% of advanced program graduates rate their level of proficiency as “Above Average” or “Far Above
Average.” The EMPS results for Goal II Professional Role indicate a minimum of 87.6% of mentors and
employers best described the current status of all unit graduates as “Above Average” or “Far Above
Average.” Because of the limited responses (n = 16) to this survey, the disaggregation of the data
according to specific programs was not reported. The table contains data reported for the entire unit.
Future data will be disaggregated in order to provide analysis according to initial teacher education
graduates, advanced teacher education graduates, and other school professional graduates. Goal II on
both surveys examines candidate ability to: a.) implement regulatory standards; b.) implement
professional standards; c.) implement ethical standards; and d.) utilize resources from professional
organizations (response rates noted in 1a4).

The Advanced Programs Graduate Survey (APGS) has been developed to add another instrument for
assessing advanced program graduates at program completion (see 1b3).

   1c.2. What data from key assessments indicate that candidates in initial teacher preparation
programs consider the school, family, and community contexts and the prior experiences of
students; reflect on their own practice; know major schools of thought about schooling, teaching,
and learning; and can analyze educational research findings? If a licensure test is required in this
area, how are candidates performing on it? [A table summarizing these data could be attached at
Prompt 1c.5 below.]

The FHSU Performance Assessment (FPA) evaluates the candidate’s ability to: analyze classroom
context and make instructional decisions based upon that analysis; to construct and deliver an
instructional unit; to construct challenging, meaningful classroom assessments; to provide information
on assessment data, student achievement, and the school accreditation status; and to analyze and reflect
on experiences that promote professional growth. All candidates complete the requirements for the FPA.
(Elementary: TEEL 495 The Elementary School; Secondary: TESS Secondary Student Teaching;
Transition-To-Teaching: TESS 807 Becoming a Reflective Teacher). Candidates must receive a score of
78% on the overall FPA to be recommended for a teaching license.

Candidates consider the school, family, and community contexts and the prior experiences of students in
                                                   Page 17


FPA Criterion 1 Contextual Information and Learning Environment Adaptations. For 2007-2008
elementary candidates received a score of 92.4% on FPA Criterion 1. Secondary candidates received a
score of 94.3% on the FPA Criterion 1. Transition-To-Teaching (T2T) candidates received a score of
95.8% on the FPA Criterion 1.

Candidates reflect on their own practice in the FPA (Criterion 7: Reflection), and in their own self-
evaluation of their performance on: (a) The Student Teaching Final Reflection and (b) The School Board
Meeting Reflection. For 2007-2008 elementary candidates received a score of 85.8% on FPA Criterion
7. Secondary candidates received a score of 86.1% on the FPA Criterion 7. Transition-To-Teaching
(T2T) candidates received a score of 93.6% on the FPA Criterion 7. The GPS results for Goal VII:
Reflection indicate that a minimum of 80% of initial teacher education graduates rate their level of
proficiency as “Above Average” or “Far Above Average.” The Employers and Mentors Survey results
for Goal VII: Reflection indicate that a minimum of 75% of mentors and employers best described the
current status of all unit graduates as “Above Average” or “Far Above Average."

Candidates demonstrate knowledge of major schools of thought about schooling, teaching, and learning
through program courses. For example, in TEEL 431 Educational Psychology, candidates participate in
course assignments that include developing an Instructional Approaches Matrix, which is a compilation
of the key features, advantages and limitations of five approaches to teaching. The five approaches to
teaching include: direct instruction (expository); discovery (inquiry); problem solving; problem based
learning; and collaborative learning. For 2007-2008 elementary candidates received a score of 88.7% on
The Instructional Approaches Matrix. Secondary candidates received a score of 89.2% on The
Instructional Approaches Matrix. The Classroom Management Plan includes rules, consequences and
rewards, classroom procedures and routines, communication of the plan, and a description of learner
compatible classroom climate. For 2007-2008 elementary candidates received a score of 93.2% on The
Classroom Management Plan. Secondary candidates received a score of 85.7% on The Classroom
Management Plan. The T2T program candidates complete TESS 804: Understanding the Learner, which
includes The Classroom Management Plan (96% passed with a score of "C" or higher).

The EBI survey shows candidates also consistently perceive that they are prepared in areas related to
management of education constituencies relating to school, family, and community contexts (n=91,
response rate=97.9% high to extremely high on a scale of 7).

All initial candidates are required by Kansas to take the Principles of Learning and Teaching Test (PLT).
Subset IV: Profession and Community specifically measures candidates' awareness and understanding of
the school/teachers as a resources to the larger community, factors outside of school that influence
students' life and learning, partnerships among teachers, parents, and community leaders, and laws
related to students' rights and teacher responsibilities. PLT test scores indicate that 94.61% of all initial
candidates pass the PLT after program completion.

    1c.3. What data from key assessments indicate that advanced teacher candidates reflect on their
practice; engage in professional activities; have a thorough understanding of the school, family, and
community contexts in which they work; collaborate with the professional community; are aware
of current research and policies related to schooling, teaching, learning, and best practices; and can
analyze educational research and policies and explain the implications for their own practice and
the profession? [A table summarizing these data could be attached at Prompt 1c.5 below.]

The GPS results for Goal VII: Reflection indicate that a minimum of 66.7% of all advanced program
graduates rate their level of proficiency as “Above Average” or “Far Above Average.” The EMPS
results for Goal VII: Reflection indicate that a minimum of 75% of mentors and employers best
described the current status of all unit graduates as “Above Average” or “Far Above Average.”
                                                  Page 18




All candidates in the advanced teacher education programs have opportunities to demonstrate their
engagement and collaboration skills in professional activities and communities. All advanced candidate
practicums include role-related activities related to engagement and collaboration skills in professional
activities and communities. In addition, program specific courses, other than practicums, have integrated
activities that pertain to demonstrating engagement and collaboration skills in professional activities and
communities. For example, in SPED 861: Vocational/Transition Education, a required special education
course, candidates are required to complete a minimum of six activities that require them to engage in
professional activities within the community.

All candidates in the advanced teacher education programs are required to research and analyze the
demographics of their placement school and community during practicum courses. Candidates provide
background information about students, faculty, and community that include: race/ethnicity; home
language, socioeconomic status, gender and age.

All candidates in advanced teacher education programs are required to take a program-specific research
course in which they can demonstrate their awareness of current research and policies related to
schooling, teaching, learning and best practices. Candidates have analyze different types of research (e.g.
qualitative and quantitative), propose a research project and present the implications of their research on
their profession.

Initial and advanced candidates are encouraged to submit research to academic research journals such as
the Academic Leadership Journal hosted by the COET and edited by the Advanced Education Programs
Department.

    1c.4. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about graduates'
preparation related to professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills? If survey data have not
already been reported, what was the response rate? [If these survey data are included in a
previously attached table, refer the reader to that attachment; otherwise, a table summarizing the
results of follow-up studies related to professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills could be
attached at Prompt 1c.5 below.]
 The survey data for this question is reported in the response for 1a.4 and 1c.1.

    1c.5. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the
professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills of teacher candidates may be attached here.
[Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of
attachments (0-5) should be uploaded.]

1d. Student Learning for Teacher Candidates. [In this section the unit must address (1) initial
teacher preparation programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels and, if the institution
offers them, (2) licensure and non-licensure graduate programs for teachers who already hold a
teaching license.]

   1d.1. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from key assessments indicate that
candidates in initial teacher preparation programs can assess and analyze student learning, make
appropriate adjustments to instruction, monitor student learning, and develop and implement
meaningful learning experiences to help all students learn? [Data for initial teacher preparation
programs that have been nationally reviewed or reviewed through a similar state review do not
have to be reported here. Summarize data here only for programs not already reviewed. A table
summarizing these data could be attached at Prompt 1d.4 below.]
                                                 Page 19


The COET programs are reviewed by the Kansas State Department of Education and include
assessments, scoring guides, and assessment data for the state review.

    1d.2. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from key assessments indicate that
advanced teacher candidates demonstrate a thorough understanding of the major concepts and
theories related to assessing student learning; regularly apply them in their practice; analyze
student, classroom, and school performance data; make data-driven decisions about strategies for
teaching and learning; and are aware of and utilize school and community resources that support
student learning? [Data for advanced teacher preparation programs that have been nationally
reviewed or reviewed through a similar state review do not have to be reported here. Summarize
data here only for programs not already reviewed. A table summarizing these data could be
attached at Prompt 1d.4 below.]
 The COET programs are reviewed by the Kansas State Department of Education and include
 assessments, scoring guides, and assessment data for the state review.

     1d.3. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about graduates' ability to
help all students learn? If survey data have not already been reported, what was the response rate?
[If these survey data are included in a previously attached table, refer the reader to that
attachment; otherwise, a table summarizing the results of follow-up studies related to the ability to
help all students learn could be attached at Prompt 1d.4 below.]
 Teacher candidates demonstrate the ability to help all students learn by providing a supportive
 environment for diverse learners and by demonstrating knowledge and use of multiple assessments and
 diagnostic techniques. The Graduate Perception Survey (GPS) results for Goal IV: Diverse Learners
 indicate a minimum of 60% of initial teacher education graduates rate their level of proficiency as
 “Above Average” or “Far Above Average." The GPS results for Goal IV: Diverse Learners indicate a
 minimum of 83.3% of all advanced program graduates rate their level of proficiency as “Above
 Average” or “Far Above Average.” The Employer and Mentor Perception Survey (EMGS) results for
 Goal IV: Diverse Learners indicate a minimum of 68.8% of mentors and employers best described the
 current status of all unit graduates as “Above Average” or “Far Above Average” (response rate reported
 in 1a4).

The GPS results for Goal VI: Assessment and Diagnostics indicate a minimum of 40% of initial teacher
education graduates rate their level of proficiency as “Above Average” or “Far Above Average.” The
GPS results for Goal VI: Assessment and Diagnostics indicate a minimum of 58.3% of all advanced
program graduates rate their level of proficiency as “Above Average” or “Far Above Average.” The
EMPS results for Goal VI: Assessment and Diagnostics (Table E6) indicate a minimum of 75% of
mentors and employers best described the current status of all unit graduates as “Above Average” or
“Far Above Average” (response rate reported in 1a4).

On the EBI survey, 83.7% of initial candidates rated (high to extremely high on a 7 pt. scale) how well
their program prepared them to address ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and poverty issues in the classroom.
Candidates (88%) rated (good-very high on a 7 pt. scale) how well their program prepared them to work
with students with special needs (e.g., students with disabilities, gifted, ESL). Response rate=91.

    1d.4. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to student
learning may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits
electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-5) should be uploaded.]

1e. Knowledge and Skills for Other School Professionals
                                                                 Page 20


   1e.1. What are the pass rates of other school professionals on licensure tests by program and
across all programs (i.e., overall pass rate)? Please complete Table 5 or upload your own table at
Prompt 1e.4 below.

                                                    Table 5
                          Pass Rates on Licensure Tests for Other School Professionals


For Period:                                                         9/1/2007 - 8/31/2008


               Program                  Name of Licensure Test             # of Test Takers        % Passing State Licensure Test
 Overall Pass Rate for the Unit
 (across all programs for the
 preparation of other school                                         74                       95.00%
 professionals)
                                  School Leaders Licensure
 Building Leadership                                                 8                        100%
                                  Assessment
                                  School Superintendent
 District Leadership                                                 4                        100%
                                  Assessment
 Library Media Specialist         Library Media Specialist           1                        100%
 Reading Specialist               Reading Specialist                 0                        --
 School Counselor                 School Guidance and Counseling     7                        100%
 School Psychologist              School Psychologist                8                        100%
                                  Education of Exceptional
 Special Education: Adaptive                                         6                        100%
                                  Students: Core Knowledge
                                  Education of Exceptional
 Special Education: Adaptive                                         8                        100%
                                  Students: Mild to Mod
 Gifted                           No Test for this Program
                                  English to Speakers of Other
 ESOL                                                                32                       90.63%
                                  Languages


    1e.2. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from other key assessments indicate that
other school professionals demonstrate the knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state,
and institutional standards? [Data for programs for other school professionals that have been
nationally reviewed or reviewed through a similar state review do not have to be reported here.
Summarize data here only for programs not already reviewed. A table summarizing these data
could be attached at Prompt 1e.4 below.]
 The COET programs are reviewed by the Kansas State Department of Education and include
 assessments, scoring guides, and assessment data for the state review.

    1e.3. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about the knowledge and
skills of other school professionals? If survey data are being reported, what was the response rate?
[A table summarizing the results of follow-up studies related to knowledge and skills could be
attached at Prompt 1e.4 below. The attached table could include all of the responses to your follow-
up survey to which you could refer the reader in responses on follow-up studies in other elements of
Standard 1.]

Candidates preparing to assume roles in other school professional programs must demonstrate
understanding of the professional knowledge and skills as delineated in professional, state, and
institutional standards. The GPS is administered to the other school professional graduates as a review
of professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. The GPS results for Goal II Professional Role
                                                Page 21


indicate a minimum of 75% of all advanced program completers rate their level of proficiency as
“Above Average” or “Far Above Average.” The table contains data reported for all advanced program
graduates (advanced teacher and other school professionals). Because of the limited responses (n = 12)
to this survey, it was not possible to disaggregate the data according to specific programs. The GPS
results for Goal III Pedagogical Theory and Research indicate a minimum of 75% of ALL advanced
program graduates rate their level of proficiency as “Above Average” or “Far Above Average.”
Response rates reported in 1a4.

The EMPS results for Goal II Professional Role indicate a minimum of 87.5% of mentors and employers
best described the current status of all unit graduates as “Above Average” or “Far Above Average."
Because of the limited responses (n = 16) to this survey, the disaggregation of the data according to
specific programs was not reported. Future data will be disaggregated in order to provide analysis
according to initial teacher education graduates, advanced teacher education graduates, and other school
professional graduates. The EMPS results for Goal III Pedagogical Theory and Research indicate a
minimum of 75% of mentors and employers best described the current status of all unit graduates as
“Above Average” or “Far Above Average." Response rates reported in 1a4.

Initial candidates complete the EBI that gives candidate perception of their program preparedness after
graduation. An equivalent survey to the EBI for OSP candidates and advanced teacher education
candidates is in the developmental and pilot stages in the AEP Department and Graduate School. The
AEP, COET, Graduate School and College of Business and Leadership (COBL) collaborated to research
and develop a survey to measure candidates' perceptions of program preparedness. The survey was
piloted in AEP in spring 2008, and in the Graduate School in spring 2009. After refinement, the survey
will be fully implemented in for all advanced candidates in spring 2010.

   1e.4. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the
knowledge and skills of other school professionals may be attached here. [Because BOE members
should be able to access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-5) should
be uploaded.]

1f. Student Learning for Other School Professionals

    1f.1. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from key assessments indicate that
candidates can create positive environments for student learning, including building on the
developmental levels of students; the diversity of students, families, and communities; and the
policy contexts within which they work? [Data for programs for other school professionals that
have been nationally reviewed or reviewed through a similar state review do not have to be
reported here. Summarize data here only for programs not already reviewed. A table summarizing
these data could be attached at Prompt 1f.3 below.]
 The COET programs are reviewed by the Kansas State Department of Education and include
 assessments, scoring guides, and assessment data for the state review.

    1f.2. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about graduates' ability to
create positive environments for student learning? If survey data have not already been reported,
what was the response rate? [If these survey data are included in a previously attached table, refer
the reader to that attachment; otherwise, a table summarizing the results of follow-up studies
related to the ability to create positive environments for student leaning could be attached at
Prompt 1f.3 below.]
OSP candidates demonstrate the ability to create a positive environment for student learning by
providing a supportive environment for diverse learners and by demonstrating knowledge and use of
                                                  Page 22


multiple assessments and diagnostic techniques. The GPS results for Goal IV: Diverse Learners indicate
that a minimum of 83.3% of all advanced program graduates rate their level of proficiency as “Above
Average” or “Far Above Average.” The EMPS results for Goal IV: Diverse Learners indicate that a
minimum of 68.8% of mentors and employers best described the current status of all unit graduates as
“Above Average” or “Far Above Average.” Goal IV on both surveys examines OSP graduates' ability to
provide a supportive environment for diverse learners by a.) having the appropriate background and
training to recognize the needs of diverse learners; b.) implementing teaching strategies and curriculum
designs that accommodate special needs; and c.) using teaching strategies and curriculum designs that
accommodate cultural needs (response rate reported in 1a4).

The GPS results for Goal VI: Assessment and Diagnostics indicate that a minimum of 58.3% of all
advanced program graduates rate their level of proficiency as “Above Average” or “Far Above
Average.” The EMPS results for Goal VI: Assessment and Diagnostics indicate that a minimum of 75%
of mentors and employers best described the current status of all unit graduates as “Above Average” or
“Far Above Average.” Goal VI on both surveys examines other school professional graduates ability to
demonstrate knowledge and use of multiple assessment and diagnostic techniques by a.) having the
appropriate background and training to implement multiple assessments and diagnostic techniques; b.)
using a variety of information sources in evaluating student performance; and c.) using appropriate
measurement theories in evaluation and assessment (response rate reported in 1a4).

The end of program graduate survey for OSP candidates outlined in 1e3, will be used to assessment
candidate perception at program completion. It will be fully implemented in spring 2010.

    1f.3. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to other school
professionals' creation of positive environments for student learning may be attached here.
[Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of
attachments (0-5) should be uploaded.]

1g. Professional Dispositions for All Candidates. [Indicate when the responses refer to the
preparation of initial teacher candidates, advanced teacher candidates, and other school
professionals, noting differences when they occur.]

   1g.1. What professional dispositions are candidates expected to demonstrate by completion of
programs?


Candidates are familiar with the unit-wide dispositions expected of professionals and their work with
students, families, and communities. The unit-wide dispositions are delineated in professional and
institutional standards. The education unit developed and implemented a disposition assessment
instrument for both initial and advanced programs. Data collected on dispositions is analyzed at each
data retreat.

The Professional Educator (CF) takes into consideration the belief that all students can learn:

Disposition 1—Multiple perspectives from the disciplines and ongoing professional discourse including
the belief that all students can learn. (Conceptual Framework Goals I and III);

Disposition 2—The inclusion of students, families, communities, and cultures in the educational process
(Conceptual Framework Goals I and IV);

Disposition 3—The development of critical thinking and independent problem solving (Conceptual
                                                  Page 23


Framework Goals, I, II, and III);

Disposition 4—Planning educational strategies based on individual student growth in the areas of
cognitive, emotional, linguistic, social fairness and physical development (Conceptual Framework Goals
IV, V, VI, and VII);

Disposition 5—The refinement of practices based on reflection, multiple and ongoing assessment
strategies, and learning (Conceptual Framework Goals VI and VII);

Disposition 6—Professional education roles in areas such as attire, preparation, participation,
punctuality, appropriate language usage, communication skills, interpersonal relationships (Conceptual
Framework Goals II and III); and

Disposition 7—The importance of integrating technology in planning, designing, delivering and
evaluating learning experience (Conceptual Framework Goal V).

    1g.2. How do candidates demonstrate that they are developing professional dispositions related
to fairness and the belief that all students can learn? [A table summarizing these data could be
attached at Prompt 1g.5 below.]

Disposition 4 demonstrates that candidates are developing dispositional behavior related to fairness and
the belief that all students can learn. Disposition 4 states: “The Professional Educator at Fort Hays State
University values planning educational strategies based on individual student growth in the areas of
cognitive, emotional, linguistic, social fairness, and physical development.” The following key
descriptors reinforce the concepts of fairness and the belief that all students can learn: Demonstrates
belief that all students can learn at their potential; Provides encouraging feedback to all students;
Responds to the needs of all learners; Provides equitable learning opportunities for all; Values ongoing,
appropriate and developmentally sound assessment to guide instruction; and, Considers backgrounds,
interests, attitudes of all students when planning.

The unit determined ratings from the 2007-2008 Assessment of Initial Candidate Dispositions
(Disposition 4) that are "at or above" a mean score of 2.0 on a scale of 4, are acceptable candidate
performance.

1. Initial candidate dispositions: Mean score for Disposition 4 (Transition Point 1—Admission to
Teacher Education) was 2.60. The mean score for Disposition 4 (Transition Point 2—Student Teaching)
was 3.13. Data indicate a growth of +0.53 for Disposition 4.

2. T2T candidate dispositions: Mean score for Disposition 4 (Transition Point 1—Admission to T2T)
was 2.26. The mean score for Disposition 4 (Transition Point 2—Exit from T2T) was 3.50. Data
indicate a growth of +1.24 for Disposition 4.

3. Advanced candidate dispositions: Mean Score for Disposition 4 (Transition Point 2—Midway Point)
was 2.74. The mean score for Disposition 4 (Transition Point 3—Exit From Program) was 3.44. Data
indicate a growth of +0.70 for Disposition 4.

4. Other School Personnel: Mean score for Disposition 4 (Transition Point 2—Midway Point) was 2.47.
The mean score for Disposition 4 (Transition Point 3—Exit From Program) was 3.58. Data indicate a
growth of +1.11 for Disposition 4.

All programs assess and analyze dispositional data as part of the state program review. While Kansas
                                                  Page 24


does not require dispositional data, key assessments used in content reviews provide supporting evidence
for dispositional development. For example, initial programs examine dispositions in the FPA and
student teaching evaluations through their documentation of modifications for all learners, classroom
and community contextual information and professional role development. Advanced programs also
assess and evaluate dispositional data in comprehensive examinations. Such data can be located in the
state program review reports for each licensure area.

    1g.3. What data from key assessments indicate that candidates demonstrate the professional
dispositions listed in 1.g.1 as they work with students, families, colleagues, and communities? [A
table summarizing these data could be attached at Prompt 1g.5 below.]
 Disposition 2 demonstrates that candidates are developing the disposition of working with students,
 families, colleagues, and communities. Disposition 2 states the following: “The Professional Educator at
 Fort Hays State University values the inclusion of students, families, communities, and cultures in the
 educational process.” The following key descriptors reinforce the concepts of working with students,
 families, colleagues, and communities: Is sensitive to students and families from different cultures and
 with special needs; Includes parent or guardian in planning for students’ success; and, Considers
 community factors when planning.

The unit determined ratings from the 2007-2008 Assessment of Initial Candidate Dispositions
(Disposition 4) that are "at or above" a mean score of 2.0 on a scale of 4, are acceptable candidate
performance.

1. Initial candidate dispositions: Mean score for Disposition 2 (Transition Point 1—Admission to
Teacher Education) was 2.48. The mean score for Disposition 2 (Transition Point 2—Student Teaching)
was 3.18. Data indicate a growth of +0.70.

2. T2T candidate dispositions: Mean score for Disposition 2 (Transition Point 1—Admission to Teacher
Education) was 2.62. The mean score for Disposition 2 (Transition Point 2—Exit from T2T) was 3.15.
Data indicate a growth of +0.53.

3. Advanced Teacher candidate dispositions: Mean score for Disposition 2 (Transition Point 2—Midway
Point) was 2.51. The mean score for Disposition 2 (Transition Point 3—Exit From Program) was 3.36.
Data indicate a growth of +0.85.

4. Other School Professionals: Mean score for the assessment of other school professional candidates on
Disposition 2 (Transition Point 2—Midway Point) was 2.59. The mean score for Disposition 2
(Transition Point 3—Exit From Program) was 3.69. Data indicate a growth of +1.10.

All programs assess and analyze dispositional data as part of the state program review. While Kansas
does not require dispositional data, key assessments used in content reviews provide supporting
evidence for dispositional development. For example, initial programs examine dispositions in the FPA
and student teaching evaluations through their documentation of modifications for all learners,
classroom and community contextual information and professional role development. Advanced
programs also assess and evaluate dispositional data in comprehensive examinations. Such data can be
located in the state program review reports.


   1g.4. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about graduates'
demonstration of professional dispositions? If survey data have not already been reported, what
was the response rate? [If these survey data are included in a previously attached table, refer the
reader to that attachment; otherwise, a table summarizing the results of follow-up studies related to
                                                 Page 25


professional dispositions could be attached at Prompt 1g.5 below.]
The items on the GPS and the EMPS are aligned with the seven conceptual framework (CF) goals for
the unit. The alignment of dispositions with CF goals on the GPS for initial teacher education graduates
indicate: Disposition 1 (Mean 75%); Disposition 2 (Mean 70%); Disposition 3 (Mean 77%); Disposition
4 (Mean 60%); Disposition 5 (Mean 60%); Disposition 6 (Mean 75%); Disposition 7I (Mean 60%).

The alignment of dispositions with CF goals on the GPS for all advanced program graduates indicate:
Disposition 1 (Mean 75%); Disposition 2 (Mean 79.2%); Disposition 3 (Mean 75%); Disposition 4
(Mean 68.8%); Disposition 5 (Mean 62.5%); Disposition 6I (Mean 75%); and Disposition 7I (66.7%).

The alignment of dispositions with CF goals on the EMPS for all unit graduates indicate: Disposition 1
(Mean 70.8%); Disposition 2 (Mean 67.7%); Disposition 3 Mean 76.4%); Disposition 4 (Mean 73.5%);
Disposition 5 (Mean 75%); Disposition 6 (Mean 81%); Disposition 7 (Mean 75%).

The comparison of mean disposition scores aligned to the CF using data from the GPS and the EMPS
reveal the following: Employers and mentors rated Dispositions 1 and 2 lower than initial teacher
education graduates and all advanced graduates. Employers and mentors rated Dispositions 4, 5, 6, and
7I higher than initial teacher education graduates and all advanced graduates. Employers and mentors
rated Disposition 3 lower than initial teacher education graduates; however, Employers and mentors
rated Disposition 3 higher than all advanced graduates.

    1g.5. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to professional
dispositions may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits
electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-5) should be uploaded.]

Optional

   1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 1?

The Fort Hays State University Performance Assessment (FPA) is a strong unit assessment for all initial
candidates. This work sample indicates a positive impact on student learning.

All initial candidates prepare and are assessed using a work sample project called the FHSU
Performance Assessment (FPA). The purpose of the FPA is to evaluate the candidate's ability to:
1. Analyze classroom context and make instructional decisions based upon that analysis.
2. Construct and deliver an instructional unit.
3. construct challenging, meaningful classroom assessments.
4. Provide information on assessment data, student achievement, and the school accreditation status.
5. Analyze and reflect on experiences that promote professional growth.

The FPA requires candidates to prepare and implement a diagnostic assessment instrument, then analyze
the diagnostic data collected. Eventual the candidate addresses how the process impacted learning.

This assessment provides initial candidates with feedback on their professional development. In
addition, candidates who demonstrate evidence of their ability to plan and deliver effective instruction
will be an asset to the the teaching profession. The FPA is required for recommendation of a provisional
teaching license in Kansas.

   2. What research related to Standard 1 is being conducted by the unit or its faculty?
                                                  Page 26


Adams, P. (2009). Effective science teaching. Presentation at the Olathe School District Inservice,
Olathe, KS.

Boldra, S. (2009). Place-based civic education, civic literacy: We the People programs Presentation at
the Southwest Plains Social Studies Conference, Wichita, KS.

Borchers, C. A., Hopkins, A., & Seib, R. (2008). After school science club. Presented at the Annual
meeting of the Kansas Association of Teachers of Science, Junction City, KS.

Chretien, J. (2007). Building an electronics lab on a budget. Presentation at the 12th Annual Four State
Regional Technology Conference, Pittsburg, KS.

Dale, R. K., Moody, R., Slattery, M., & Wieland, R. (2007). The essential role of integrating technology
content and skills into university Principal Preparation Programs. The Rural Educator: A Journal About
Rural and Small School Issues, 29(1).

Ellis, J. & Sedbrook, S.R. (2009). Archery workshop in a secondary methods class. Kansas Association
for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance Journal, 81(1), 32-34.

Guyot, W. (2007). Comparison of high school computing usage in Kansas and Missouri. Southwest
Business Symposium Proceedings.

Mercer, D. (2007). Integrating service-learning in an elementary preservice curriculum. Presentation at
the Hawaii International Conference on Education, Honolulu, HI.

Moody, R. (2009). What to do when teacher dispositions discourage student success. United School
Administrators Winter Conference, Wichita, KS.

Sanders, K. J., & Borchers, C. A. (2009). Aspects of reading habits and dispositions of preservice
teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Reading Association, Minneapolis, MN.

Taggart, G.L. (2006). Engaging the family in science investigations. Presentation at the National Science
Teachers Association, Anaheim, CA.

(A full listing will be provided upon request.)

STANDARD 2. ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION


   The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant
 qualifications, the candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and
 improve the unit and its programs.

 [In this section the unit must include (1) initial and advanced programs for teachers, (2)
 programs for other school professionals, and (3) off-campus, distance learning, and alternate
 route programs, noting differences when they exist.]


2a. Assessment System


   2a.1. How does the unit ensure that the assessment system collects information on candidate
                                                  Page 27


proficiencies outlined in the unit's conceptual framework, state standards, and professional
standards?
The FHSU Assessment System is known as the FHSU Quality Assurance System (FQAS). The title
refers to the purpose of an assessment system to assure that processes are in place for quality programs
to produce graduates who exhibit the attributes identified in the CF and meet KSDE standards. FQAS
ties into the university culture of quality assurance. FQAS was developed and implemented in 2002. The
development committee is comprised of unit faculty from all colleges, initial and advanced candidates,
and P-12 teachers and administrators.

The dimensions of the FQAS include:

Instruments: measures being used to analyze the candidates, programs, and the unit at both the initial
and advanced levels;

Alignment: consistent and/or overlapping measures to assess and evaluate KSDE standards (program
and professional), NCATE standards, and the CF;

Procedures: when, where, how, and who collects, analyzes, and reports data;

Sampling: appropriate (fair, consistent, non-biased) measures made of candidates, courses, programs,
and unit operations;

Technology: data storage, acquisition, display, and coherent reporting processes;

Improvement: regular and systematic analysis of the data, goal setting, and evaluation to improve
courses, programs, performance, operations, and assessment system; and

Evolution: appropriate modifications and improvements in all dimensions, over time, to produce a
streamlined, meaningful, and efficient FQAS and programs.

Examination of the FQAS diagram shows multiple reviews and analysis to provide a comprehensive
assessment of the unit and program processes, personnel, and candidates. The information for these
come from three different levels: program, unit, contextual/meta-data.

Program Level Data: Each program reports its content standards-based data by candidate into the FQAS
Systematic Analysis and Reporting System (STARS). The reporting occurs three times a year, following
the completion of a semester (September 15, January 15, and June 15). Each program is responsible for
collecting data indicated in its KSDE Program Matrix, entering the data into a spread sheet, Google Doc
or through submission to the data manager.

Unit Level Data: In addition to program level data, some of which is used at the unit level, that are also
unit data, at both the initial and advanced levels, such as dispositions and post-program surveys. Once
this data is in STARS, it is accessible to KSDE/NCATE committees, programs, coordinators and other
approved requesters through the dean.

Contextual and Meta-Data: Contextual and Meta-data provides the unit with candidates’ perceptions of
their experiences. This information is helpful in interpreting data collected from candidate performance
and helps in identifying areas of concern to improve unit operations. The data is accessible through
STARS.

Contextual/Meta data being used at the initial level are the following:
                                                                    Page 28




•Educational Benchmarking Institute (EBI) Exit Survey at the end of student teaching
•Graduate and Employer Surveys - two-years post graduation

At the advanced level, the primary contextual data are the Graduate Perception Survey (GPS) and the
Employer/Mentor Perception Survey (EMPS) . Review of the assessment system during the current five-
year cycle indicated that these surveys were not providing sufficient information. As a consequence the
unit, in collaboration with the FHSU Graduate School, is developing the Advanced Programs Graduate
Survey (APGS) which is designed to elicit perceptions of the advanced programs and unit operations.
The survey was piloted in the spring of 2008 and revised for a second pilot in the spring of 2009. It is
currently under review.

In order to assure continuity of the data system the unit provides training opportunities for adjuncts, new
faculty, and current faculty from across the unit. For example, at the initial level, there are semester
training opportunities on the FPA.

   2a.2. What are the key assessments used by the unit and its programs to monitor and make
decisions about candidate performance at transition points such as those listed in Table 6? Please
complete Table 6 or upload your own table at Prompt 2a.6 below.

                                                    Table 6
                              Unit Assessment System: Transition Point Assessments


                                                    Entry to clinical        Exit from clinical                             After program
       Program                Admission                                                            Program completion
                                                        practice                  practice                                   completion
                                              Disposition
                                                                          Fort Hays State
                                              Assessment
                                                                          University
                                              Educational
                        2.75 GPA, Disposition                             Performance
                                              Philosophy Paper
                        Assessment,                                       Assessment (FPA),
                                              Technology Project
                        Admission Essay,                                  Student Teacher
 Elementary and Early                         School Board Meeting
                        Human Growth and                                  Evalution -            2.75 GPA               EMPS, GPS, EBI
 Childhood Unified                            Reflection Diverse
                        Development Exam 2,                               Cooperating Teacher,
                                              Learners Exam
                        PPST, Qualified                                   Student Teacher
                                              Special Education
                        Admission or CIS                                  Evaluation -
                                              Observation
                                                                          University Supervisor,
                                              Placement in Diverse
                                                                          PraxisII PLT
                                              Setting Pre-FPA
                                              Disposition                 Fort Hays State
                                              Assessment Tech-            University
                        2.75 GPA, Disposition Rich Lesson Plan            Performance
                        Assessment,           School Board Meeting        Assessment (FPA),
                        Admission Essay,      Reflection Diverse          Student Teacher
 Secondary              Human Growth and      Learners Exam               Evalution -            2.75 GPA               EMPS, GPS, EBI
                        Development Exam 2, Collaborative Skills          Cooperating Teacher,
                        PPST, Qualified       Special Education           Student Teacher
                        Admission or CIS      Observation                 Evaluation -
                                              Placement in Diverse        University Supervisor,
                                              Setting                     PraxisII PLT

                        Completion of a
                        Bachelor’s degree (or                             3.0 GPA in the
                        higher) from a           C or Higher in each      courses listed on the
                        regionally accredited    course and a 3.0 GPA     plan of study, Fort
 Transition to          university, in a major   each semester,           Hays State University   2.50 GPA (per state
                                                                                                                        EMPS, GPS, EBI
 Teaching (T2T)         content area for         PraxisII Content Test,   Performance             regulation)
                        middle/secondary         Practicum Evaluation     Assessment (FPA),
                        instruction or           - University             PLT, Disposition
                        coursework               Supervisor,              Assessment,
                        equivalent to a major,   Disposition              Practicum Evaluation
                                                               Page 29


                     2.50 Cumulative GPA    Assessment               - University
                     and on last 60 hours                            Supervisor
                                                                     Disposition
                                                                     Assessment,
                                                                     Assessment (Program
                                                                     Specific), Diversity
                     GPA (Program           3.0 GPA (Program
                                                                     (Program Specific),
 Advanced Programs   Specific-2.75 or       Specific), Disposition                         3.0 GPA   EMPS, GPS, APGS
                                                                     Technology (Program
                     higher)                Assessment
                                                                     Specific), Reflection
                                                                     (Program Specific),
                                                                     PraxisII Content
                                                                     Exam


    2a.3. How is the unit assessment system evaluated? Who is involved and how?
The unit assessment system is evaluated by its professional community through two annual data retreats
– initial level and advanced level, through annual reviews by standing committees, and the assessment
committee. The unit added a T2T retreat in fall 2009. Annual data retreats provide a review of all
collected data, systems, and processes. The participants for the initial program retreat include members
of the unit, candidates, area school personnel, and administration. The advanced program retreat
participants are advanced program faculty, advanced candidates, and school personnel. The retreats are
facilitated by members of the assessment committee in working groups comprised of stakeholders. The
primary purpose of the retreats, which is elaborated in question 2b, is to examine candidates’
performance, unit operations, and program quality. The secondary purpose is to assess the overall
quality, validity, and reliability of the assessments being used and the assessment system. The outcomes
from this process are used to make modifications to the assessment system, instruments, and processes
within the unit. A series of Unit Action Steps are developed and periodically reviewed for compliance.

The KSDE/NCATE Unit committees (i.e. Candidate Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions; Field
Experiences & Clinical Practice; Diversity; Faculty Qualifications; Faculty Qualifications, Performance,
and Development; and Unit Governance & Resources) produce reports that are used as part of the
annual review process. Committee reports are coupled with the reports from the annual data retreats to
develop a series of recommendations for unit improvement. These separate reports are merged by the
Accreditation Steering Committee to establish the merit and priority of the recommendations which
results in an annual unit improvement plan that addresses all aspects of the unit – from programs to
processes. The unit improvement plan is forwarded to the Council on Preparation of Teachers and
School Professionals (COPTSP) for policy recommendations to the dean of COET, the head of the Unit.
The dean finalizes the annual plan and makes appropriate assignments to carry out the actions and
measures that improve the unit. The flow of data, analysis and reporting are shown in the FQAS
attachment (see 2.a.6) and a more detailed report of the improvement process is shown in the attachment
Strategic Processes Blueprint (see 2.a.6). Changes that have occurred through this process are indicated
in section 2c.2.

An end-of-cycle reflection review in August 2009 provided the unit with a systematic review of the five
year cycle to determine measurable impact on the system or improving candidate performance. This
reflection cycle is providing the unit the opportunity to make evidence-based decisions related to all
items within the unit – from assessment of governance to measures of candidate performance. The first
five year cycle is complete, and the unit over the next two years will be implementing evidence-based
changes in the system.

    2a.4. How does the unit ensure that its assessment procedures are fair, accurate, consistent, and
free of bias?

The unit has worked diligently to determine if the assessments in use are fair, accurate, consistent, and
                                                  Page 30


free of bias. The process began in 2002 with the initial review and selection of the instruments. Each
selected instrument was reviewed by the assessment committee. The review information was entered
into the assessment notebook. This Notebook, accessible to all members of the unit, provides an account
of the creation of the instrument, intended use, and information related to being fair, accurate, consistent
and free of bias.

Each year, during the annual data retreats, the participants are asked to not only look at trends of data
and interpretations, but provide input on the quality of the instruments being used. This input is used by
the assessment committee and other accreditation committees to evaluate improvement of the
instruments or processes that are involved in the use of the instrument (see 2c2). This process has
resulted in faculty training, modifications of instruments, retirement of instruments, changing
technology, and refinement of the conceptual framework to reflect operational definitions to improve
understanding of the use and application of the instruments. While there have been some changes, the
unit has not made major modifications; the unit chose to maintain the bulk of the instruments and
processes for five years.

During the review of the annual data retreats in the spring of 2009, it was discussed that the unit was
closing a cycle, and should now focus on the expected outcomes of the actions identified in the annual
data retreats since 2004. This process will occur in November of 2009 at the initial data retreat and in
February/March 2010 at the advanced data retreat. A direct outcome of these retreats, based on multiple
years of data, will be to a) determine the effectiveness of improving the instruments and processes based
on the changes proposed since 2004, b) provide recommendations for the assessment committee as to the
efficacy of instruments currently in use, and c) evaluate the effectiveness of the FQAS in leading to
improvements in unit performance.

As called for in the unit assessment plan (2a3) a five-year review was held in August 2009 to review the
instruments and critically analyze the measures used at the transition points at both the initial and
advanced levels. These outcomes will be given to the assessment committee in December of 2009 to
begin the process of a major revision in the FQAS in conjunction with the outcomes from the 2009-2010
initial and advanced annual data retreats. The net effect of this layer of analysis is a systematic and
procedural process of continuous improvement.

   2a.5. What assessments and evaluation measures are used to manage and improve the
operations and programs of the unit?

In order to improve unit processes, additional data is collected relative to unit processes and faculty
performance. This data is made available through STARS for subsequent use in quality improvement
processes. Specific examples of this type of data include:

Educational Benchmarking Institute (EBI) Teacher Education Survey Exit Survey (Initial)
The EBI provides initial candidates the opportunity to evaluate their unit and program experiences. The
survey is analyzed and reported as part of the initial annual data retreat.

The factors in the EBI are triangulated with the other measures (Table 6a) to provide context on the
strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities in the unit. The survey also provides input on unit
administration, career, and support services. Information on these latter items is used for assessing and
improving unit operations and governance through and annual review and reporting process. As
discussed in 2.a.1, an advanced-only survey (APGS) was developed in fall 2008 and slated for full
implementation in spring 2010. This was an identified area for improvement from the annual data retreat
at the advanced level.
                                                   Page 31


Graduate Perception Survey (GPS)

This instrument is sent to graduates two years after graduation. The survey is used to solicit information
about the unit operations and programs from initial and advanced graduates in relation to the CF. This is
analyzed by the assessment committee and shared with the unit during the annual retreats.

Employer/Mentor Perception Survey (EMPS)

This instrument is sent to mentors and employers two years after graduation. Information is requested
from mentors and employers in relation to the CF, which is analyzed by the assessment committee and
shared with the unit during the annual retreats.

Other Measures used to improve unit operations and procedures of the Unit include:

Field Placement of Initial and Advanced Candidates,
Diversity Survey of Faculty,
Diversity Teaching in Classes,
Faculty Teaching Evaluations, and
Evaluation of University and Academic Supervisors during Directed Teaching and Internship
experiences at the Advanced level.

These combined measures, in conjunction with the others identified in this section, are used to help
improve overall operations.

    2a.6. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the unit's
assessment system may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many
exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-5) should be uploaded.]
                                      2.a.6 Strategic Processes Blueprint
                    Initial Candidate Assessment Instruments Presented by Transition Points
                   Advanced Candidate Assessment Instruments Presented by Transition Points
                     Fort Hays State University Quality Assurance System (FQAS) Flowchart
                                              Standard 2 Exhibits

See Attachments panel below.


2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation


   2b.1. What are the processes and timelines used by the unit to collect, compile, aggregate,
summarize, and analyze data on candidate performance, unit operations, and program quality?

           How are the data collected?
           From whom (e.g., applicants, candidates, graduates, faculty) are data collected?
           How often are the data summarized and analyzed?
           Whose responsibility is it to summarize and analyze the data? (dean, assistant dean, data
            coordinator, etc.)
           In what formats are the data summarized and analyzed? (reports, tables, charts, graphs,
            etc.)
           What information technologies are used to maintain the unit's assessment system?
                                                 Page 32




Data Collection:

Data is collected at the program and unit level from applicants, candidates, recent graduates, faculty and
other stakeholders (e.g. cooperating teachers, mentors, and employers).

Program Level:
Each advanced and initial program has identified a set of measures that are used to ascertain attainment
of KSDE standards. While many of the measures are unique to the needs of the program, some are also
part of the data used by the unit for the Professional Education Standards and CF elements. A single
point of contact within each program is responsible for collecting and reporting the data from each
measure on a semester basis. Data that is shared between the program and the unit is cross-indexed for
analysis and reporting purposes. Data is submitted into the STARS database.

Unit Level
Advisors: Dispositions and rating of content knowledge are completed by program level advisors. These
assessments are done at set transition points within the program and are reported by submission to the
department and then to the teacher certification office for compiling before uploading to STARS.

Teacher Licensure Office: External tests such as the PRAXIS (PLT and content exams) are taken by the
students at completion of program. The scores are compiled for entry into STARS and analysis for the
Annual Data Retreats. The teacher certification office also collects data on all candidates from other
University data systems for transfer into the STARS system as needed.

Professional Services Office: The office collects and compiles all data related to student teaching
(student teaching documents and student ratings) and submits it into the STARS system for use with the
Annual Data Retreat at the initial level. This office also administers and submits the EBI Survey for
analysis. The office tracks each placement to document demographic and diversity data.

Dean's Office: The office initiates the GPS and EMPS that are administered two years after program
completion through the Docking Institute, a research group located on the FHSU campus.

Data Collection Sources::

Data is collected from initial level candidates at transition point 1. This data is in various forms
including essay, GPA, PPST & ACT Scores, dispositions ratings, et. al. Faculty provide data by
completing forms related to each candidate. Candidates provide information on performance and survey
instruments during the transition points 2 and 3 (Admission to Student Teaching, Exit from Student
Teaching for initial; Midway in Program and Exit from Program for advanced). Faculty gather this
information for submission. The faculty also complete disposition and knowledge assessments that are
submitted for each at the points indicated in Table 26a and 26b . Information on graduates is collected
via survey instruments. Attachments 2b4 Initial Transition Point Measures and Advanced Transition
Point Measures provide a summary table of the nature of the data collected as organized by conceptual
framework element, type, and if it is a knowledge, skill or disposition measure.

Data Summary and Analysis:

Data is collected each semester and entered into STARS. Attachment 2b4 Data Reporting Timeline
provides specific information of when data is reported. There are two levels of data summary and
                                                 Page 33



analysis that occur each year. Each individual program area prepares an annual program report that
summarizes the data and also makes suggestions for continuous quality improvement of each program.
These reports are due on May 1 of each year.

Unit data is collected once each semester and is entered into STARS. The data is summarized in the fall
of each year for analysis by the assessment committee and other requesting committees. The unit as a
whole analyzes the data during the annual data retreats and produces an annual unit action plan (see 2b4
Sample Unit Action Steps 2005).

Data Summary and Analysis Responsibility:

Program Level
The program point-of-contact is responsible for conducting the summary and assessment for the
program. An improvement in this process, based on a review of the FQAS conducted in August of 2009
will provide one additional layer of review by the Standard 1 Committee to suggest unit-wide changes to
be incorporated into the unit action plan.

Unit Level
An initial summary of the data is prepared by the data coordinator. This primarily takes the form of
producing reports for requesting individuals or committees.

Data Formats:

Data is summarized using narrative reports, tables, and graphs.

Each program area produces a report that summarizes in tabular form internal and external measures. An
interpretation of the data is also required which summarizes the data and suggests steps for program
improvement.

In preparation for the annual data retreats the assessment committee produces tabular and graphical
summaries of major unit data that is disaggergated by transition point and conceptual framework
element, elementary and secondary, and other identified groups (refer to 2b.2).

The EBI summary that is produced includes not only tables and graphs, but also an interpretive summary
and suggested actions. The annual summary is shared with the attendees at the initial and advanced data
retreats. A similar report is prepared for all data sources. An example of Disposition Measures that is
used during the retreats is provided in attachment 2b4 Sample Data Representation.

As an outcome of the retreats a holistic written summary is made of the data disaggergated by CF
element and transition point, elementary, secondary, Transition-to-Teaching, and advanced. These are
the basis for the annual unit action plan.

Information Technology:

The unit is in a continuous process of improving information technologies used as part of the assessment
system. At one point, the unit had made use of LiveText, but it did not meet the unit needs, and the
switch was made to EXCEL. The unit is currently experimenting with Google Docs as a method of
providing data input and wider access to the data by unit members. There are ongoing efforts to use of
the resources and flexibility provided by cloud computing environments (an emerging computing
technology that uses the internet and central remote servers to maintain data and applications).
                                                   Page 34


In terms of data storage and representation, the unit has made use of two relational databases – one
maintained by the data coordinator which collects and stores data at both the program and unit level and
the other, a secure database that accesses secure data collected by the university on candidates through
the teacher licensure and certification office. The unit database is not limited to relational items, but also
includes all unit reports, written summaries, program reports, and information deemed important by the
unit.

Data output is the responsibility of the data manager. Currently, access is open through a request for
information, such as by the assessment committee as part of the annual data retreats or program for
review reports. Major improvements have been made each year in the reporting side of the database
moving from tabular to graphical data with a more user friendly organizational structure and view.

   2b.2. How does the unit disaggregate candidate assessment data for candidates on the main
campus, at off-campus sites, in distance learning programs, and in alternate route programs?
 Table 2b2 provides a summary of delivery options for the unit programs.

Candidates have any and all of these options to achieve a degree. In the case of elementary there are few
students who can be classified as purely on-campus. A majority, as would be expected from the
emphasis of the institution on virtual learning, take part of their program through virtual classes. There
has been no distinction made at the elementary level due to the primary blending of programs, though
this is being reviewed as part of the unit action plan. The curriculum mapping process now includes
identifying on-campus, virtual, and T2T candidates.

The T2T program was started in 2003, but the unit was not required to assume governance of the
program until fall 2007, after the state grant ended. Entry into the T2T program is based on having a
discipline degree from an accredited institution prior to enrolling in the program. The unit-level data that
is collected and analyzed are the Praxis II (PLT), Praxis Content Exam, the FHSU Performance
Assessment (FPA), and Dispositions. Two years ago, the T2T program had a large enough population to
disaggregate PLT and FPA information. The candidates were compared to the standard program and
showed stronger performance on the PLT as noted in the initial data retreat. Future versions of the
surveys given by the unit will allow disaggregation for this group. Beginning in fall 2009, a third data
retreat was held to specifically focus on examining the data related to T2T. Refer to the KSDE Program
Review Report on T2T for information on program evaluation.

Distance learning candidates at the early childhood and elementary levels are assessed using the same
measures used in the rest of the unit. Data for this group has been disaggregated at the course level. It
was noted in the unit improvement plan for 2007-08 and 2008-09, that the unit determine appropriate
groups for disaggregation. A working group identified these groups as on-campus, virtual and T2T
candidates. Beginning in fall 2009, unit surveys will disaggregate elementary options including the new
program of Early Childhood Unified.

Advanced Programs: All advanced programs are considered to be delivered through distance education
modes; there is no additional disaggregation.

   2b.3. How does the unit maintain records of formal candidate complaints and their resolutions?
Candidates have the right for their concerns relative to instructors, courses, program, and unit to be
recorded, reviewed, and acted upon in accordance with university and unit policies. Complaints are
handled through due-process established by each department of the university and approved by each
college. Each department has developed a uniform appeals/grievance process to address concerns about
faculty, faculty actions, and grading. The general process, as stated in the advising handbook and
                                                      Page 35


followed by the unit, is to first discuss the issue with the instructor. If this does not resolve the issue,
departmental procedures apply. If the issue is still not resolved, it then is dealt with through the
Academic Appeals committee or most appropriate administrative unit.

Candidates in the COET have two options to express and resolve a grievance. They can file a complaint
at the departmental level or at the college level. The complaint forms reflect the process that is followed:
the faculty/staff member is interviewed, the department chair meets with the candidate to resolve the
issue, the assistant dean or dean meets with the candidate to resolve the issue and make a final ruling. If
resolution has still not been met, candidates have the option for an appeal through the appropriate
administrative unit (e.g. Academic Appeals, Sexual Harassment). Records for grievance issues are
maintained in the appropriate office and the department or COET dean’s office, depending on where the
issue was resolved.

Information from the resolution is confidential, but shapes program and unit operations as one case will
make evident. Advanced candidates in the ESOL program were unsure of the procedures for practicum.
They felt that the instructor was not being clear on the expectations. The candidates appealed to the
COET. The outcome was clarification of practicum procedures and clinical experiences for candidates in
the ESOL practicum.

   2b.4. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the unit's
data collection, analysis, and evaluation may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be
able to access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-5) should be
uploaded.]
                                Table 2.b.4 - Advanced Transition Point Measures
                                   Table 2.b.4 - Inital Transition Point Measures
                                              Unit Action Steps 2005
                                             Data Reporting Timeline
                                 2.b.4 - Sample Disposition Data Representation

See Attachments panel below.


2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement

   2c.1. In what ways does the unit regularly and systematically use data to evaluate the efficacy of
and initiate changes to its courses, programs, and clinical experiences?

Unit Level Systematic Changes:

Annual Time Frame: As has been reported, data is entered into the system on a semester basis and
prepared for analysis on an annual basis during the annual data retreats at both the initial and advanced
levels. The analysis results in a series of action steps that are reviewed at different levels to a) seek input
from standing committees, b) capture other unit improvements, and c) allocate resources to the most
important changes needed by the unit. Not all improvements can be implemented in a given cycle; the
KSDE/NCATE Steering Committee provides a first-level analysis for determining where the unit should
allocate effort and resources based upon the annual data retreats. Through a series of review processes
(refer to the FQAS attachment in 2a) and input from other standing committees, the assessment
committee determines where the unit could potentially derive the greatest improvement in programs,
measures, governance, operations, assessment system, et. al. Those items that reach the dean's level are
then assigned to ad hoc or standing committees to carry out the indicated actions.
                                                  Page 36




A review of action steps reveals two important aspects of this process. One is identification of a specific
action that is to be completed within a one to three year time frame as indication of progress on the
identified action step. For example, the unit has recognized misalignment of the curriculum in
preparation of initial candidates for the PLT. To address this, in 2005-06, the unit formed a working
group to produce a curriculum map in order to make recommendations for curriculum changes. The
immediate action was a committee that could report progress and produce a map that leads to a plan for
curriculum improvement. This project has been making measurable progress in mapping critical areas
(e.g. technology, diversity) which will lead to improved curriculum as the findings are implemented.
Another example was the implementation of training at the initial level for cooperating teachers. This
was initiated due to poor correlation between university and cooperating teacher ratings on the student
teaching evaluation instruments (2005-06).

The second aspect of the action steps is a projected time frame and impact of any changes – from
instrument changes, policy, faculty training, governance, courses, etc. that vary on a two to five year
time frame to expect the changes in the program from the actions. Coupled with the time frame is an
identified measure or process that the unit has identified as being sensitive to the proposed action step.
Thus, with the curriculum mapping, it is not expected to see a significant impact from the effort for
several years, whereas discontinuing the use of LiveText improved our data collection process within a
semester (2004-05).

The philosophical and foundational aspect of the unit’s approach to assessment and the use of
assessment resonate with the university culture of continuous quality improvement. The unit makes
changes, but only does so if there is evidence or a plan to obtain evidence in order to make a decision
about the efficacy of current and future assessment. As part of this, the unit chose not to make any major
changes in its instrument changes until sufficient data (>3 years) were present to make such a change. As
these changes are made, corresponding changes will be made in the transition points. Minor changes
such as refinement of the FPA may change when lack of clarity or mismatch between the information
and the intent of the measure is noticed.

At the completion of a five year cycle in the fall of 2009, all action steps which indicated an observable
change in the unit’s data, are reviewed. This review was done following a meeting in the summer of
2009, where unit leaders were asked to identify problems with the current assessment system. These two
events (three with the advanced data retreat) will culminate with closure of the current assessment
system to the creation of a system that retains the best and necessary elements of the current system with
development and implementation of new and improved elements over a two-year time frame (2010-12).
The completion of the unit’s first five year cycle occurs in the fall of 2009.

Program Level:

Programs, which are evaluated and reviewed by KSDE, undergo a similar process. Data is collected and
analyzed on an annual basis. Analysis is done with program level action steps being created to improve
the program. At the time the program is reviewed by KSDE which occurs every three years, programs
have the option to improve and correct measurements to better assess the program. All programs were
approved in the fall of 2009 by KSDE.

Standing Committee Reviews:

While much of this section has focused on macro-level actions, a great deal of change occurs through the
actions of standing committees. These groups work on making improvements in processes, clarification
of unit standards and definitions, programs, governance, and instrumentation. A specific example of this
                                                  Page 37


was the realization through the annual data retreat that while the unit had definitions for the CF elements,
these definitions were not sufficient or robust in helping determine the efficacy of instruments in
measuring the intended outcome of candidates as a result of the program. A direct consequence was the
development of operational definitions by the CF committee (2007-08). This work is being used to help
in the revision of assessment instruments. Similar actions have occurred with the other standing
committees as are presented in the individual reports.

The key aspect of our assessment system is a conservative approach to continuous quality change.
Changes are based on evidence. Major changes only occur on a five year time scale to allow sufficient
time for collection of evidence. The unit is now entering a new and unique phase of its assessment
system, the opportunity to revise and improve unit operations and measures in order to assure quality
improvement, not just change for change sake.

   2c.2. What data-driven changes have occurred over the past three years?


The unit, through its on-going process uses data to identify changes that need to occur in programs,
courses, curriculum, governance, operations, and systems. The attachment, Compiled Annual Action
Steps, a document that is a derivative of the annual unit Improvement plan provides the list of enacted
and on-going unit improvement processes. The report incorporates the data indicating the need for the
change. The document is a work-in-progress, as the five year review cycle will occur in fall 2009.
However, there have been numerous and specific actions that have occurred over the last five years. A
sampling of the last 3 years is reported here, the attachment reports five years of data.

AY2007-08
Initial:
Curriculum mapping project continues (initiated in October 2007)
Initiate a review of past efforts to reform reflection evaluation including identifying measures that
should be removed.
Alignment of technology, diversity, and student teaching assessments with operational definitions of the
conceptual framework (see 2005-06)
Determination of disaggregation for annual reviews.
Review team to identify what initial candidates should know about assessment.
A review of the student teaching

Advanced:
Work on developing a new disposition assessment
Work on developing an Mentor/Employer Perception Survey

Unit:
Improve graphical and tabular representation of data for annual data retreats
Changing to electronic surveys for all surveys to assure response by all candidates
Review of the faculty development and evaluation handbook
COET adjunct training
Kansas Board of Regents program efficiency review

AY2006-07
Initial:
Continued improvement in the rubric used in student teaching and training materials for university and
cooperating teachers
Improvement in the admission sheets at transition points 1 and 2 for consistency of ratings
                                                 Page 38


Removal of pre-FPA data from the FQAS
Assessment committee standardizes data retreat notebook and data representation to improve the Annual
Data Retreat

Advanced:
Develop a Advanced Programs Graduate Survey similar to the EBI

Unit:
Implementation of Google Docs for data sharing
Adjunct faculty training on unit measures needed for KSDE/NCATE data

AY2005-06
Initial:
Initiate development of operational definitions for the CF
Formal training on the use of the FPA
Removal of Focus Group interviews from the meta-data set of the assessment system
Faculty development workshop on how to improve courses to help candidates perform well on the case-
histories in the PLT

Advanced:
Explore techniques to improve the GPS to improve response rates
Develop operational definitions for the conceptual framework
Improve the STARS database

   2c.3. What access do faculty members have to candidate assessment data and/or data systems?

The faculty and candidate members all have primary access to data during the data retreat. Reports are
posted on the web and are available for review. The other means of obtaining information is through a
request to the data coordinator who can produce customized reports. For example, students in TEEL 350
Curriculum and Assessment have been able to access data for their research. Faculty members have been
able to access FPA scores in preparation for professional presentations and publications. It should be
noted that the key event is the Annual Data Retreat where all stakeholders are invited and welcome to
attend to review and act on the unit data. The attachment: Key Assessment Data

The current flow of data within STARS involves both input into the database and website at specified
intervals and output to any requesting group. Requests for data can occur whenever necessary for use by
KSDE/NCATE committees, programs, or approved individuals. Currently the request takes the form of
a request to the data coordinator who generates the report. Future evolution of STARS will automate this
process for authorized individuals. These changes in the assessment system will improve the process by
allowing users to access and create reports meeting their own criteria allowing greater depth of study
and review for the question under study.

   2c.4. How are assessment data shared with candidates, faculty, and other stakeholders to help
them reflect on and improve their performance and programs?
The annual reports are widely circulated through a review process to seek input from all members of the
unit providing a means to communicate the data to the unit members as a professional learning
community. An example of the type of data used at the retreat is shown in the Key Assessments in 2c5.
It should also be noted that the process of improving unit action steps are run through various approving
bodies that as a whole comprise the stakeholders of the unit.
                                                  Page 39


A more direct process, an outcome of the annual data retreats, has been the identification of: a) issues
that all unit members should be aware; and b) training programs to improve awareness and performance.
One example of this was the professional dialogue begun about the PLT assessment. Elementary and
secondary faculty members on the Standard 1 Committee began discussions that would lead to program
improvement at both levels. The other major outcome has been training sessions for unit faculty on the
PLT and ways to incorporate experiences in their courses for candidates. There has also been a series of
training sessions to work with candidates through special training sessions.

At the initial level the most significant work has been with the FPA at the initial level. The data indicated
that this is a very important measure and exercise for the candidates and faculty. This awareness has
resulted in communicating findings to candidates and major efforts to provide multiple training
experiences and course-based development of the FHSU Performance Assessment for both candidates
and faculty.

At the advanced level the most significant work has been a) to define, develop, and pilot dispositions
measures that align with the desired outcomes for advanced programs; and b) research, develop, and
pilot the Advanced Programs Graduate Survey as a companion candidate perception survey to the initial
programs EBI candidate perception survey.

   2c.5. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the use of
data for program improvement may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to
access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-5) should be uploaded.]
                                  Grouped Unit Action Steps - Year 5 Review
                                     Data Retreat 2009 - Key Assessments

See Attachments panel below.


Optional

   1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 2?

One of the key strengths in relation to Standard 2 is the cycle of continuous quality improvement. Five
years ago, the unit was not actively engaged in looking at data collected through the assessment of
courses, field experiences, governance, operations, and candidate performance. The implementation of a
an annual data retreat at the initial and advanced level has moved the discussion of unit performance
from a few engaged individuals and committees to the level of the community. All stakeholders are
provided the opportunity to review and reflect on unit data, suggest its meaning, and engage in the
process of improving the unit. Our annual dialogues have helped to focus efforts on actions that make a
difference on both short and long term timescales.

Coupled with this dialogue is the annual process of developing unit action steps for improvement. The
process necessitates evidence-based changes. It is strength in that change is managed through evidence
and outcomes are measured through evidence. The process also recognizes that changes within the unit,
in order to be effective, take time, as evidenced by our planned five-year review cycle. The process has
resulted in short-term projects that have strengthened the unit, and long-term projects, such as
curriculum mapping, that will help the unit grow.

One final note has been the continual growth and improvement in the technology and data representation
as an outcome of our review processes. Each year the unit has invested in efforts to improve how data is
                                                 Page 40


collected and reported. This process has strengthened both collection and interpretation of data. The
embedded accountability within the system and data-reporting provides an annual check on the unit and
its essential components.

   2. What research related to Standard 2 is being conducted by the unit or its faculty?

Anderson, J., Callahan, P., Fuller, D.S., & Mercer, D. (2009). Innovations in service-learning practice
and pedagogy: effective strategies for meeting NCATE standards in professional education programs.
Presentation at the American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education, Chicago, IL.

Callahan, P., Davis, T., Dunlap, N. Fuller, D.S., & Mercer, D. (2008). Service-learning as an effective
strategy for meeting NCATE standards in professional education programs. Preconference workshop
presentation at the American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA.

Mercer, D. K. & Dale, R. K. (2008, Winter/Spring). A collaborative approach to teacher preparation
program improvement. The Advocate – Association of Teacher Educators, 16.

Mercer, D. K. (2008, Winter). Authentic performance assessment: Informing candidates, faculty and
programs. Academic Leadership, 6.

Sanders, K. & Mercer, D. (2008). Mentoring reading specialist candidates after program completion:
Collecting data for NCATE benchmarks. Paper and presentation at the International Reading
Association Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Sanders, K.J. & Borchers, C.A. (2008). Using the teacher work sample as a performance assessment for
the undergraduate clinical course. The college reading association conference, Fortlaurdale, Fl.

Sanders, K.J. (2007). The effect of college student’s reading habits on the content and delivery methods
in college classes. Second Annual Midwestern Conference on Research at Predominantly Undergraduate
Institutions, Hays, KS.

Taggart, G.L and Walizer, B. R. (2006). A systematic approach using teacher work samples for
accreditation documentation. Presentation at the Association of Teacher Educators, Atlanta, GA.

Walizer, B. R., Dreiling, K., & Taggart, G. L. (2008). A systematic approach for training candidates to
use the teacher work sample. Academic Leadership OnLine Journal, 6, 4, 1-13.


STANDARD 3. FIELD EXPERIENCES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE


    The unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and
 clinical practice so that teacher candidates and other school professionals develop and
 demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students
 learn.

 [In this section the unit must include (1) initial and advanced programs for teachers, (2)
 programs for other school professionals, and (3) off-campus, distance learning, and alternate
 route programs, noting differences when they exist.]
                                                   Page 41


3a. Collaboration between Unit and School Partners

    3a.1. Who are the unit's partners in the design, delivery, and evaluation of the unit's field and
clinical experiences?
 The unit, with the assistance of P-12 partners, carefully designs, delivers, and evaluates field experiences
 and clinical practice to help all candidates. Partners include candidates, building principals,
 superintendents, cooperating teachers, supervisors, and key community members.

The unit's P-12 partnerships are manifested in the Clinical Practice Committee (CPC) and the Council
on Preparation of Teachers and School Personnel (COPTSP)

The CPC serves in an advisory capacity to support field and clinical experiences. It is comprised of
content area faculty, practitioners from P-12 schools, candidates, and initial and advanced professional
education faculty. The CPC committee reviews, revises, and implements procedures to enhance the
operation and function of field experiences and student teaching. This committee ensures the sharing
and integration of resources between the education unit and partner schools to augment candidates and
P-12 student learning in initial and advanced field experiences and clinical practice. The CPC uses the
education unit’s conceptual framework, current research on clinical experiences, service learning data,
and input from other KSDE/NCATE committees to guide recommended program improvements.

The COPTSP, the governing body of the education unit, establishes policy related to field experiences
and clinical practices. The purpose of this council is to provide ongoing input and review of policies and
procedures impacting teacher preparation programs at both the initial and advanced levels. COPTSP is
comprised of P-12 teachers and administrators, education unit faculty, candidates at both the initial and
advanced levels, and other stakeholders. COPTSP is one way that the school and unit share expertise to
support candidates’ learning in field and clinical experiences.

    3a.2. In what ways have the unit's partners contributed to the design, delivery, and evaluation
of the unit's field and clinical experiences?


The director of field experiences establishes placement partnerships with unit partners. Responsibilities
of the director and the unit’s partners are to identify appropriate placements, monitor diversity of field
placements, and establish open lines of communication. The director enhances P-12 partnerships by
conducting training each semester with student teachers, supervisors, and cooperating teachers using a
variety of delivery modes including on-campus, Internet formats, and digital streaming.

At the initial program level, the director of field experiences regularly meets with school partners. These
collaborations are formalized contractually through the Undergraduate Student Teaching and
Observation Agreement that includes specific discussions regarding the responsibility of the education
unit, the collaborating school district, as well as joint expectations for both the unit and schools in which
candidates are placed. Under this two-year contract, the education unit agrees to provide appropriate
information regarding the candidate; provide supervision with a qualified university supervisor;
continued collaboration for program improvement; provide ongoing communication; and a small
stipend. The district agrees to appoint a liaison to facilitate communication; comply with education unit
recommendations as they apply to placements; provide an appropriate classroom assignment with a
qualified teacher: provide feedback to the university supervisor about candidate progress; and to work
collaboratively with the education unit for ongoing improvement of the field and clinical experiences.

At the advanced level, the design, delivery and evaluation of clinical experiences are unique to each
program. Each program requires a practicum and/or field experience supervised by faculty in the
                                                  Page 42


individual program. Placements are collaboratively determined by the advanced program
coordinators/faculty and school district/agency with input from the candidate. Advanced program
coordinators/faculty and P-12 school partners design the clinical experiences to assess the candidate’s
knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions. For example, the building leadership program conducts
focus groups via telephone with building principals to provide feedback on clinical experiences. A
random sampling of principals is contacted every five years.

Individual programs have role-related requirements for the practicum and/or field experience.
Fulfillment of the requirements is monitored at the program level. Advanced programs require
documentation and a signed form from the district acknowledging acceptance of the candidate and
knowledge that the candidate may require professional visits to other sites to complete the diversity
experience requirement.

   3a.3. What are the roles of the unit and its school partners in determining how and where
candidates are placed for field experiences, student teaching, and internships?

At the initial level, the director of field experiences collaborates with university faculty and school
principals or other designated school personnel to obtain the best placement for candidates. Using the
candidate placement requests and input from academic advisors, the director reviews candidates' past
placement history and collaborates with an appropriate school district. If a candidate has not had a
diverse placement prior to student teaching, the student teaching placement must be in a diverse school
placement. The field experience tracking system contains not only information regarding each student’s
prior placement, but also the demographics of each school including exceptionalities, racial/ethnic
backgrounds, gender, linguistic, and socioeconomic groups. All field placements are made
collaboratively by the director of field experiences, FHSU teacher education faculty, candidates, and P-
12 partners.

Placement of the unit’s alternative path to licensure program, Transition to Teaching (T2T), is an
exception. In the state of Kansas, T2T candidates must be employed as the teacher of record. The unit
works closely with the candidate and the partner district during the candidate’s academic program.
However, as T2T candidates are full-time teachers, clinical experiences take place in their own settings.
There is a close relationship between the unit licensure officer, program advisors, faculty, and
administrators throughout the candidate’s program. Annual progress reports are required by the KSDE
and all documents require signatures from all three partners. Further, the district assigns a mentor who is
an active participant in supporting the candidate throughout their academic program. The unit regularly
communicates with all partners.

Advanced placements are specific to the individual program, thus program coordinators/faculty place
candidates at approved sites. Placements are collaboratively determined by the advanced program
coordinators/faculty and school district/agency with input from the candidate. Advanced program
coordinators/faculty and P-12 school partners design the clinical experiences to assess the candidate’s
knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions. Each program reports placements to the director of
field experiences each semester. Opportunities for experiences outside the candidate’s own building or
district is often vital to the successful documentation of attainment of the knowledge and skills required
in the KSDE program and professional standards, as well as to ensure appropriate diverse experiences.
All advanced program practicums require candidates to complete a series of activities that relate to
diversity. If necessary, candidates must travel outside their practicum site to complete these tasks. P-12
school partners assist the unit in identifying out-of-district sites.


   3a.4. How do the unit and its school partners share expertise and resources to support
                                                  Page 43


candidates' learning in field experiences and clinical practice?

School partners and unit faculty regularly share expertise to mutually support candidates’ learning in
field experiences. Unit faculty and school partners often collaborate to share expertise that one or the
other possesses. For example, school partners addressed unit faculty regarding crisis management
planning and responding to crisis situations. In turn, unit faculty provide in-service by sharing
curriculum and content best practices with partnering districts. At times, school partners develop
consortia with the unit to maximize sharing of expertise among a number of partnering school and the
unit, which broadens the concept of partnerships and the larger learning community.

The director of field experiences, department chairs, and initial/advanced program coordinators meet
with school administrators for the purpose of discussing student teacher placements, expected candidate
performance and dispositions. The director consults with principals during administrative meetings to
dialogue about candidates placed in their schools.

The unit and school partners also collaborate on grants that provide resources to candidates and support
them in their field and clinical work.

The education unit outlines specific ways to ensure successful field and clinical experiences for
candidates and for partner schools. In initial programs, written guidelines are collaborative developed in
the student teaching handbook. In advanced programs, written guidelines are developed in practicum
and internship syllabi.

Professional development is provided each semester for unit faculty and cooperating teachers to learn
about the FPA, a key piece of evidence of candidates' program preparation.

    3a.5. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to
collaboration between unit and school partners may be attached here. [Because BOE members
should be able to access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-5) should
be uploaded.]
                                            Standard 3 Exhibits

See Attachments panel below.


3b. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

   3b.1. What are the entry and exit requirements for clinical practice?

Initial Candidates

Clinical placements prior to student teaching require admission to teacher education. Requirements
include: 2.75 GPA, successful completion of the PPST or approved ACT scores, a 2 rating or better on
all dispositions, content rating, philosophical essay, and two letters of reference.

Entry Criteria: Initial candidates are required to apply for student teaching (Admission to Student
Teaching form.) Requirements include: disposition rating, content-knowledge rating, 2.75 GPA,
successful admission to major content program, admission into Teacher Education, blood borne
pathogen state-mandated training, self-reported background disclosure, and TB screening. Candidates
obtain a Kansas Student Teaching Certificate that permits them to student teach under the supervision of
FHSU when all requirements have been verified. Admission to teacher education and student teaching
                                                        Page 44


require COPTSP approval.

Exit Criteria: Exit requirements include completion of approved program, including the student teaching
course, passing score on the Principles of Learning and Teaching Test (PLT) and content area test
(PRAXIS II), are required before recommendation for licensure. All candidates must achieve a 78%
minimum cutoff score on the FPA to be recommended for licensure.

T2T Candidates

Entry Criteria: T2T admission to practice includes a content area bachelor degree or equivalent, 2.5
GPA, and an offer of employment from a Kansas school district with an appropriate assigned teaching
schedule in their content area. T2T candidates participate in a supervised practicum course each
semester.

Exit Criteria: T2T exit criteria include: completion of approved program, 2.5 cumulative GPA, annual
progress reports (required by the KSDE), signed by the candidate, FHSU, and the hiring district. A
passing score on the PLT and a minimum FPA score of 78% are required before recommendation for
licensure.

Advanced Teacher Candidates and OSP:

Entry Criteria: Advanced education programs have admission requirements for practicum and/or field
experience that are program specific and outlined in practicum syllabi, program web pages, and
university catalog. Requirements include: GPA, BS degree from an accredited institution, and successful
program coursework progress.

Exit Criteria: Successful completion of the clinical experience is required with a grade of "C" or higher.
Candidates must pass the PRAXIS II content test to be recommended for licensure.

   3b.2. What field experiences are required for each program or categories of programs (e.g.,
secondary) at both the initial teacher preparation and advanced preparation levels, including
graduate programs for licensed teachers and other school professionals? What clinical practice is
required for each program or categories of programs in initial teacher preparation programs and
programs for the preparation of other school professionals? Please complete Table 7 or upload
your own table at Prompt 3b.9 below.

                                                Table 7
                           Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program


                                                             Clinical Practice (Student Teaching
              Program               Field Experiences                                               Total Number of Hours
                                                                        or Internship)
                                                             One 16-week, full-time student
                            Three 40 Hour Methods Courses,
                                                             teaching placement in an
 Elementary                 20 Hour Corrections of Reading                                    880
                                                             elementary school; 640 Hours (16
                            Disabilities
                                                             weeks x 40 hours/week).
                                                             One 8-week Early Childhood
                                                             Placement, one 8-week
 Early Childhood Unified    Three 40 Hour Methods Courses    Elementary Placement, full-time  860
                                                             in a school; 640 Hours (16 weeks
                                                             x 40 hours/week).

                                                             One 12-week Elementary
                            Three 40 Hour Methods Courses,   Placement, one 4-week Special
                                                              Page 45


                                 20 Hour Corrections of Reading    Education Placement, full-time in
 Elementary with Special
                                 Disabilities                      a school; 640 Hours (16 weeks x     880
 Education Minor
                                                                   40 hours/week).
                                                                   One 16-week, full-time student
 All Secondary Program EXCEPT    20 Hours Observation, 40 Hours    teaching placement in a high
                                                                                                       700
 Mathematics 6-12                in TESS 494                       school; 640 Hours (16 weeks x
                                                                   40 hours/week).
                                 One 20 Hour Observation in Math   One 16-week, full-time student
                                 276. One 30 Hour Observation in   teaching placement in a high
 Mathematics: 6-12                                                                                     730
                                 MATH 276. One 40 Hour             school; 640 Hours (16 weeks x
                                 Observation in TESS 494           40 hours/week).
                                                                   ESOL 885 - 3 Cr Hour - 120
 ESOL                                                                                                  120
                                                                   Hours
 Special Education: Adaptive -
                                                                   SPED 867 - 3 Cr Hour - 80 Hours     80
 Advanced
 Special Education: Gifted                                         SPED 859 - 3 Cr Hour - 80 Hours     80
 Building Leadership                                               AEP 879 - 3 Cr Hour - 150 Hours     150
 District Leadership                                               EAC 979 - 3 Cr Hour - 150 Hours     150
 Library Media Specialist                                          LIBR 859 - 3 Cr Hour - 130 Hours 130
 Reading Specialist                                                READ 885 - 3 Cr Hour - 90 Hours     90
                                 AEP 889 - Internship - two 3 Cr
                                                                   AEP 879 EL/SEC - 3 Cr Hours -
 School Counselor                Hour Courses - Minimum of 300                                         700
                                                                   Minimum 100/Hours
                                 Hours (600 Hrs Total)
                                 2 Cr Hours X 2 - 1200-Hour
 School Psychologist                                               PSY 984 - 9 Hours - 600 Hours       1800
                                 Internship
                                 1 Cr Hour per semester x 4
 Restricted Programs                                               TESS 808- 4 Hours- 120 Hours        120
                                 semesters- 120-Hour Practicum



    3b.3. How does the unit systematically ensure that candidates develop proficiencies outlined in
the unit's conceptual framework, state standards, and professional standards through field and
clinical experiences in initial and advanced preparation programs?
The CF is defined in terms of seven goals that fall under the heading of The Professional Educator. It
provides direction for programs, courses, instruction, candidate performance, scholarship, service, and
unit accountability. The goal of the unit is to develop candidates who embody the elements of the CF
and demonstrate proficiency in the elements of the CF in their classroom instruction and belief that all
students can learn when instructed in a fair and equitable manner. Candidates develop proficiencies
outlined in the unit’s CF, state standards, and professional standards. To ensure that all candidates
receive a program of study that is current with today’s needs of a professional educator, all goals of the
conceptual framework are regularly reviewed and evaluated with P-12 administrators and teachers, unit
faculty, candidates and other stakeholders in a collaborative effort to support development of the
Professional Educator.

The Systematic Technology Analysis and Reporting System (STARS) assessment system documents
that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards identified in the unit’s CF. Further,
the system ensures that candidates positively affect student learning. State and national standards are
clearly reflected in the CF. The framework is aligned with all objectives for each course and field
experience as evidenced in syllabi. Formative and summative assessments are conducted for each
candidate. These assessments are aligned to the CF (e.g. student teaching evaluation, FPA). The
cooperating teacher and the university supervisor complete evaluation forms based upon candidates’
knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The evaluation form addresses candidates’ abilities to teach
effectively.

All unit programs' goals and objectives are aligned with the CF as evidenced by the KSDE program
                                                  Page 46


approval process. All unit initial and advanced programs were officially approved in October 2009 by
KSDE.

All unit programs' field experiences and clinical practices, in turn, are aligned with the CF and are
designed to develop the Professional Educator as defined in the CF. The seven goals of the conceptual
framework are integrated in each field experience. Candidate reflections are required for each experience
at both initial and advanced levels. Reflections emphasize the goals within the CF. Assessments for field
experiences and clinical practices are aligned to the CF. The alignment of field experiences and clinical
practices with the CF is detailed in the unit’s assessment system as evidenced by the requirements
candidates must meet at each transition point. A common rubric aligned with the conceptual framework
is used by supervisors and mentor teachers to evaluate candidate performance on each set of
competencies. Candidates also self reflect using the same common rubric.

    3b.4. How does the unit systematically ensure that candidates use technology as an instructional
tool during field experiences and clinical practice?

Teacher preparation programs engage candidates through a progression of field and clinical experiences
that focus on student learning, reflectivity, diversity, integration, assessment, and use of technology.

Initial candidates facilitate student learning through presentation of content in clear and meaningful
ways and through the integration of technology. All candidates in the initial programs are required to
take TECS 290 Introduction to Instructional Technology. This course teaches candidates how to model
and apply the various instructional technologies to enhance instruction. Candidates are required to
successfully complete the course prior to their student teaching experience.

TECS 290: Introduction to Instructional Technology objectives are aligned with the National
Technology Standards for Teachers from the International Society for Technology in Education.

TECS 390: Instructional Technology for Elementary School. Elementary candidates take this additional
course.

TESP 370: Technology Applications in Special Education. ECU and SPED Minor candidates take this
additional course.

Secondary candidates receive additional technology instruction specific to their content in methods
courses.

During the clinical experience, candidates’ use of technology is assessed by the cooperating teacher and
the university supervisor. Candidates are assessed according to their ability to integrate technology into
planning, designing, delivering, and evaluation of learning experiences.

The FPA requires the integration of technology. Initial candidates are evaluated on the effectiveness of
the technology integration according to the rubric in the FPA. These combined measures ensure that all
candidates are capable of enhancing student learning through the use of technology.

Candidates reflect on their use of technology in their clinical experience and the impact it had in the
learning process.

Reflective prompts include:
-How did I select the appropriate technology to use?
-How did I utilize a variety of appropriate instructional technology and tools to fulfill my job
                                                   Page 47


responsibilities?
-What impact did my use of technology have on student learning?

All advanced teacher preparation and other school personnel (OSP) candidates participate in field
experiences and clinical practice that require them to engage in structured activities related to the roles
for which they are preparing. These activities involve the use of role-related technology. All advanced
candidates are required to reflect on current research in technology and use of technology within their
respective roles.

    3b.5. What criteria are used in the selection of school-based clinical faculty? How are the
criteria implemented? What evidence suggests that school-based clinical faculty members are
accomplished school professionals?

The criteria for selecting school-based faculty was jointly determined by the COPTSP and the unit.

Cooperating teacher Criteria:
1. Licensed at the appropriate level and/or content area
2. Minimum of three years of teaching experience
3. Minimum of one semester in the current school district
4. Recommended by the principal

Criteria for school faculty is implemented contractually through the Undergraduate Student Teaching
and Observation Agreement. In addition, cooperating teachers are surveyed each semester to ensure they
meet required criteria.

University supervisor Criteria:
1. Advanced degree in the appropriate teaching discipline
2. Appropriate licensure
3. Current experience in the field
4. Experience in supervising teaching personnel

Criteria for the university supervisor is implemented through the director of field experiences assigns
faculty to specific candidates who are responsible for the overall evaluation of candidates’ performance
during student teaching.

Advanced Program Supervisor/Mentor Criteria:
1. Licensed in the appropriate level content area
2. Current experience in the field in the appropriate discipline

Criteria for the field supervisor/mentor is implemented through the advanced program faculty who is
responsible for each role specific practicum/internship course. Overall evaluation of candidates’
performance in the practicum/internship course is by course grade of a "C" or higher.

Evidence that school-based clinical faculty members (initial and advanced) are accomplished school
professionals:
1. Initial-bachelor degree or higher
2. Advanced-master's degree or higher, or 10+ years of experience
3. Professional license in their discipline


   3b.6. What preparation do school-based faculty members receive for their roles as clinical
                                                   Page 48


supervisors?

Regular training sessions are held to inform university supervisors, cooperating teachers and school
supervisors about student teaching procedures, conceptual framework, forms, and assessment
instruments. A variety of communication modes are used to train supervisors and cooperating teachers
including on-campus, Blackboard, IPTV, digital streaming, and I-pod recording.

To set the stage for successful relationships, an initial conference between the university supervisor,
cooperating teacher, and the student teaching candidate serves to open communication lines and share
information. The initial programs observation form ensures that all candidates utilize online discussion
boards for communication and peer feedback. An online course in Blackboard is available to all student
teaching candidates to communicate via group discussions, share information, and submit assignments
and reflective writing. Additionally, email and telephone communications are ongoing.
Regular correspondence from the COET is extended to all cooperating teachers and supervisors that
highlights important dates, provides information about mentoring, and offers support and
encouragement to school-based faculty.

A one or two-hour course on mentoring and coaching is now offered each semester and open to unit
faculty. This course provides opportunities for learning and networking with other mentors and
supervisors. School faculty supports student teachers and interns in both on-campus and online learning
formats through observations, group discussions, email, and other use of technology.

In advanced programs, practicum/internship instructors collaborate with school-based faculty on their
role responsibilities as clinical supervisors and/or mentors. As appropriate, a letter is sent to district
superintendents, building principals, and/or alternative setting directors to notify and thank them for
hosting a practicum/internship candidate.

   3b.7. What evidence demonstrates that clinical faculty members provide regular and continuous
support for student teachers, licensed teachers completing graduate programs, and other school
professionals?


Student teachers are evaluated throughout clinical experiences by their mentor or cooperating teacher
and their university supervisor. Mentors and/or cooperating teachers formally evaluate each candidate
twice, at midterm and toward the end of the clinical experience. Candidates receive a numerical rating
on the evaluation, and are provided specific comments to promote candidate growth and improved
performance.

The unit ensures clinical faculty provide regular and continuous support for student teachers, licensed
teachers completing advanced programs and other school professionals through a systematic governance
structure that provides clinical practice oversight and guidance, monitors and conducts training for
clinical faculty, and establishes policy related to field experiences and clinical practices.

The unit incorporates training each semester for student teachers, clinical supervisors, mentors and
cooperating teachers using a variety of delivery modes including on-campus, IPTV, Internet formats,
and digital streaming. Participants are informed about the student teaching process, conceptual
framework, clinical practices forms, and assessment instruments. As a quality assurance measure,
clinical faculty are then evaluated each semester by candidates and reviewed by the director of field
experiences.

All advanced candidates are observed in their primary practicum placement by a supervisor or mentor
                                                  Page 49


furnished by the district. Programs require candidates to collaborate with their supervisor/mentor in
practicum/internship activities. Signed documentation that the supervisor/mentor was involved and
approved the candidate's activity is then required at the completion of the practicum/internship. In
addition, course instructors provide individualized advising to candidates throughout the
practicum/internship via email, telephone, video conferencing, and face-to-face meetings.

    3b.8. What structured activities involving the analysis of data and current research are required
in programs for other school professionals?
 Other school personnel candidates participate in field experiences, internships and clinical practices that
 require them to engage in structured activities related to the roles for which they are preparing. These
 activities involve the analysis of data, the use of technology, current research application, and the
 application of knowledge related to students, families, and communities. Each OSP program has a
 minimum of a 100 hour practicum involving clinical practices and field experiences. In addition, OSP
 programs include identified clinical practices and current research within courses to enhance the end-of-
 program practicum and internship experiences.

The following are examples of OSP clinical experiences and current research projects.

Data collection:
Financial and enrollment data for school districts
Student, school, and community demographics
School improvement data analysis and evaluation
Safe schools audit
Assessment and use of student outcomes data
Cultural analysis
School technology plans
Personnel performance data collection and analysis

Research:
Research project covering one of thirteen exceptionalities
Thirteen case studies involving analysis and interpretation of data
Research paper over social and cultural foundations of counseling
Lifespan development
Organizational theory
Organization and implementation of auxiliary school administrative services
School district procedures related to special education personnel
Classroom observation instrument based on effective teaching and best practices research

    3b.9. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the design,
implementation, and evaluation of field experiences and clinical practice may be attached here.
[Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of
attachments (0-5) should be uploaded.]

3c. Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and Professional
Dispositions to Help All Students Learn

  3c.1. On average, how many candidates are eligible for clinical practice each semester or year?
What percent, on average, complete clinical practice successfully?

On average 63.43 initial candidates are eligible for student teaching each semester. 100% completion
                                                 Page 50


rate.

On average 56 T2T candidates are eligible for clinical practice each semester. 100% completion rate.

On average 62.67 advanced candidates are eligible for clinical practice each semester. All advanced
candidates are required to achieve a course grade of a "C" or higher in clinical practices (practicum
and/or internship). 100% completion rate.

    3c.2. What are the roles of candidates, university supervisors, and school-based faculty in
assessing candidate performance and reviewing the results during clinical practice?

Initial Programs
University Supervisor and School-based Faculty Roles:
1. Evaluate candidates during field and clinical experiences using the electronic student teacher
evaluation form.
a. University supervisors complete a minimum of three formal observations during the student teaching
experience before making a grade recommendation.
b. Cooperating teachers completes a midterm and final evaluation detailing the candidate’s performance
and recommendation for a letter grade.
c. Both the university supervisor and the cooperating teacher recommend a grade, then jointly decide on
the final student teaching grade. The unit requires a performance level "C" or higher in student teaching.


2. Mentor and advise candidates on progress and performance

Advanced Programs:
1. Professional education faculty:
a. Assess candidates' performance through program specific field-based courses (internships) and
practicums. A minimum grade of "C" is required.
b. Mentor candidates progress and performance through video conferencing, phone, and face-to-face
advising sessions.
c. Document completion of clinical experiences with the candidate's field-based supervisor/mentor.
d. Document candidate proficiencies in diversity and technology through clinical experiences.

Candidate's Role (initial and advanced programs):
1. Complete required self-assessments of their performance through reflections during their clinical/field
practices.
2. Model professional dispositions during clinical experiences.
3. Meaningfully participate in clinical experiences as a professional growth opportunity.
4. Model the unit's proficiencies in diversity, assessment and technology.
5. Model the unit's conceptual framework elements.
6. All initial candidates complete the FPA with a minimum score of 78% to be recommended for
licensure.

    3c.3. How is time for reflection and feedback from peers and clinical faculty incorporated into
field experiences and clinical practice?

Field experiences and clinical practices allow time for reflection and include feedback from peers and
clinical faculty. Reflection is an element of the unit’s conceptual framework. Goal VII of the CF states:
The Professional Educator utilizes reflection as a tool for self-growth, program assessment, and
                                                  Page 51


instructional effectiveness. The Professional Educator uses self-reflection as well as the reflection of
other such as peers, mentor, students, supervisors, and parents to effect positive changes in curriculum,
instruction and classroom management.

Micro-teaching activities are embedded in all initial programs as a form of field experience in which
candidates receive peer and instructor feedback. Micro-teaching begins early in a candidate's program
and builds in complexity in the methods classes, and finally experienced fully in student teaching.

Initial and advanced candidates use journals and essays with which to reflect on field and clinical
practices, and share with peers and clinical faculty. Formal reflection in the form of a written essay is
required at the end of all initial and advanced candidates’ clinical practice. Candidate reflection occurs
informally via email and phone as well. Reflection activities include candidate reflection on the unit's
proficiencies in technology and diversity.

Candidates participate in electronic discussion boards during student teaching, practicums, and field
experiences. This process enables peer, group and individual reflection to occur while candidates are in
the field. It provides a sense of connectivity between candidates and professional education faculty
during these critical and real world experiences .

   3c.4. What data from multiple assessments provide evidence that candidates demonstrate the
knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions for helping all students learn in field experiences
and clinical practice?


The unit's Quality Assurance System (FQAS) ensures that candidates demonstrate mastery of content
areas and pedagogical and professional knowledge. At each transition point candidates are involved in
multiple assessments to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and dispositions. Clinical experiences are a
crucial component of the unit’s Systematic Technology Analysis and Reporting System (STARS). Key
assessments, including internal and external measures, indicate that candidates meet professional, state,
and institutional standards. Further, STARS ensures that candidates positively affect student learning.
State and national standards are clearly reflected in the unit’s CF. The CF is aligned with all objectives
for each course and field experience as evidenced in course syllabi. Formative and summative
assessments are conducted for each candidate. Clinical practice assessments are linked to candidate
competencies outlined in professional, state and institutional standards.

Initial candidates are evaluated regularly during field and clinical experiences by their mentor or
cooperating teacher and their university supervisor. Assessments vary by program prior to student
teaching. Using the electronic student teacher evaluation form, university supervisors complete a
minimum of three formal observations during the student teaching experience. On this same form, the
cooperating teacher completes a midterm and final evaluation detailing the candidate’s performance and
recommendation for a letter grade. The unit requires a performance level "C" or higher in student
teaching. The average number of hours per week of professional education faculty supervising student
teaching is 35 hours.

Initial candidates also demonstrate competency in helping all students learn in field experiences and
clinical practice through the FPA. All candidates must achieve a performance level of 78% or higher on
the FPA.

Advanced and other school personnel programs evaluate candidates’ field and clinical performance
through practicum/field-based courses using course grades. All candidates are required a performance
level of "C" or higher in clinical and field experience related courses. All advanced programs have
                                                  Page 52


aligned the practicum evaluation with program specific professional standards. For example, building
and district leadership programs are aligned with ISSLC standards. The number of hours in advanced
program practicum courses is a minimum of 100 hours.

     3c.5. What process is used to ensure that candidates collect and analyze data on student
learning, reflect on those data, and improve student learning during clinical practice?
 Candidates collect data on student learning, analyze the data, reflect on student work, and develop
 strategies for improving learning.

Initial Programs Process:
All initial candidates prepare and are assessed using a work sample project call the FHSU Performance
Assessment (FPA). The purpose of the FPA is to evaluate the candidate's ability to:
1. Analyze classroom context and make instructional decisions based upon that analysis.
2. Construct and deliver an instructional unit.
3. Construct challenging, meaningful classroom assessments.
4. Provide information on assessment data, student achievement, and the school accreditation status.
5. Analyze and reflect on experiences that promote professional growth.

This process requires candidates to a) prepare and implement a diagnostic instrument; b) analyze
diagnostic assessment data collected; c) address how the process impacted instruction; and d) prepare
and administer a summative assessment, analyze its results, and draw conclusions about instruction
based on the summative data. Reflection on learning is a key component of the FPA.

Advanced Programs Process:
All advanced teacher candidates in Library Media Specialist, Reading Specialist, Education and ESOL
are required to take a minimum of 6 credit hours in instructional design, assessment and data analysis
prior to enrolling in field and clinical practices courses. The required core courses in these programs are
AEP 867: Instructional Design & Assessment and AEP 858: Data Analysis and Assessment. These
courses enable candidates to transfer their course content knowledge and skills about collecting and
analyzing student learning into the field to monitor and improve student learning during clinical
practice.

Special Education, Educational Leadership, School Counseling, and School Psychologist candidates are
all required to take a minimum of 3 credit hours in assessment and data analysis content related to their
respective roles prior to clinical practice. Data analysis and assessment courses enable candidates to
transfer their course content knowledge and skills about collecting and analyzing data on student
learning into the field to monitor and improve student learning and services during clinical practice.

    3c.6. How does the unit ensure that all candidates have field experiences or clinical practice that
includes students with exceptionalities and students from diverse ethnic/racial, linguistic, gender,
and socioeconomic groups?
Candidates interact with students with exceptionalities and students from diverse ethnic/racial,
linguistic, gender, and socioeconomic groups during their field and clinical practice experiences.
Diversity is part of the unit’s CF and a data point in the unit’s assessment system (FQAS). Goal IV of
the CF states: The Professional Educator respects and values all persons and provides a supportive
environment for diverse learners.

Candidates implement teaching strategies and curriculum designs that accommodate the special needs of
individual learners as well as the cultural differences that emanate from a multicultural classroom and
community environment.
                                                  Page 53




The unit and school partners consider a variety of demographic and professional factors when making
placements to obtain the best placement for each candidate. All candidates participate in field and
clinical practice experiences that include students with exceptionalities and students from diverse
ethnic/racial, linguistic, gender, and socioeconomic groups.

If an elementary or secondary candidate has not had a diverse placement prior to student teaching, the
student teaching placement must be in a diverse school placement. The field experience tracking system
contains not only information regarding each candidate’s prior placement, but also the demographics of
field settings. All elementary and secondary candidates participate in a field experience setting with
exceptional and diverse students for a minimum of 60 clock hours prior to student teaching. The
candidates experience various facets of the school environment as designed for exceptional and diverse
students such as classroom management, teaching styles, lesson presentation, learning styles, technology
usage, physical environments, and student behavior. The candidate submits a reflection paper
highlighting their learning relative to diversity issues including confidentiality and privacy of all people
in educational settings. Candidates must earn a minimum of a “C” grade in these field experiences.

All advanced candidates participate in diverse field and practicum experiences. Field and practicum
experiences are program specific, clearly outlined in course syllabi, and related to the professional role
the candidate is seeking. All programs require specific practicum experiences relating to diversity and
the diverse needs of P-12 students.

When practicum or field experience cannot be met in the advanced candidate’s primary placement, it can
be met through visits in other settings. For example, with input from the School Library Media Specialist
Task Force, determination was made that program standard six-"The library media specialist upholds
professional ethics and promotes equity and diversity" could be met through visits to other schools if
there were not ample opportunities in the primary placement.

Candidates' field and clinical placements are the laboratories for their diversity experiences.

   3c.7. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the
development and demonstration of knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions for helping all
students learn may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many
exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-5) should be uploaded.]

Optional

   1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 3?

Conceptual framework is well articulated in clinical practice assessments.

Candidates are engaged in service learning activities (e.g. Ben Franklin Papers, electric car races, toys
for tots).

Internships candidates participate in activities attended by children, parents, and community members
(e.g. star gazing night, school carnivals, Sternberg Museum events, school/community soup suppers).

Candidates work with a wide variety of students in a variety of types of placement (e.g. classrooms, after
school programming, community agencies for the developmentally disabled).
                                                  Page 54


   2. What research related to Standard 3 is being conducted by the unit or its faculty?

Hattan, C.J. (2006). Utilizing online videoconferencing in clinical supervision. Presentation at the North
Central Association for Counselor Education and Supervision, Kansas City, MO.

Mercer, D. K. & Mills, G. E. (2007, Spring). A model of engagement: Coordinators for field and clinical
experiences in a college of education. The Advocate – Association of Teacher Educators, 15.

Walizer, B. R., Jacobs, S. L., & Danner-Kuhn, C. L. (2007). The effectiveness of face-to-face vs. web
camera candidate observation evaluations. Academic Leadership, 5, 3, 1-9.

STANDARD 4. DIVERSITY


    The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and provides experiences for
 candidates to acquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions
 necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates can demonstrate and
 apply proficiencies related to diversity. Experiences provided for candidates include working
 with diverse populations, including higher education and P-12 school faculty; candidates; and
 students in P-12 schools.

 [In this section the unit must include (1) initial and advanced programs for teachers, (2) programs for
 other school professionals, and (3) off-campus, distance learning, and alternate route programs, noting
 differences when they exist.]


4a. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experiences

   4a.1. What proficiencies related to diversity are candidates expected to develop and
demonstrate?

The unit aligned the diversity proficiencies with the conceptual framework (CF) and the unit’s definition
of diversity: "The differences among groups of people and individuals based on culture, ethnicity, race,
socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, migrant status, religion, sexual orientation, and
geographical area."

The diversity curriculum for candidates in both the initial and advanced program are guided by Goal IV
of the unit's CF: "The Professional Educator respects and values all persons and provides a supportive
environment for diverse learners. The Professional Educator implements teaching strategies and
curriculum designs that accommodate the special needs of individual learners as well as the cultural
differences that emanate from a multicultural environment in a global society."

Although Goal IV of the conceptual framework is specific to diversity, diversity proficiencies are
aligned to all of the CF goals.

Diversity proficiencies are addressed in coursework and clinical experiences in all initial and advanced
programs. Diversity proficiencies are also aligned with the unit’s CF and assessed at the unit’s transition
points. All candidates are expected to develop and demonstrate the following diversity proficiencies:

1.Recognizes and explains the nature of diversity in the community to inform instruction (CF I, IV and
VII).
                                                 Page 55


2.Understands and can articulate characteristics and attributes of student populations which contribute to
commonality and differences (CF II and IV).
3.Recognizes and applies appropriate educational options for students from diverse backgrounds (CF II,
IV and VI).
4.Understands and applies results of assessment data for educational placement and accommodations
(CF I, IV, V and VI).
5.Utilizes appropriate technology to gather and disseminate information (CF I, IV and V).
6.Reflects on diversity experiences from a variety of perspectives (emotional, informational, &
developmental) for diagnostic purposes and self-growth (CF I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII ).

A curriculum mapping process allows programs (initial and advanced) to be continuously reviewed by
the CF Committee, Standard 1 Committee, departments and programs for content relevant to diversity.
The diversity mapping process enables the unit to have an effective tool to develop a coherent and
cohesive diversity curriculum unit-wide. The mapping process collects individual instructor and course
information. The diversity curriculum map demonstrates: 1) What diversity proficiencies are being
measured within the course; 2) What content knowledge about diversity the student is expected to gain;
3) What diversity skills the candidate is expected to apply of the required content; 4) What activity
related to diversity the instructor will use to impart the knowledge; 5) How the content and application
skills will be measured and 6) The virtual or on-campus classification of candidates within courses.

All course syllabi in the COET have a goal, objective, and/or activity that provides for understanding
issues of diversity and is aligned with the CF.All initial and advanced programs participate in the
diversity mapping process. All curricula in the the COET are aligned to reflect a curriculum map that
includes diversity issues and content spiraled throughout the curriculum in a planned manner.

   4a.2. What required coursework and experiences enable teacher candidates and candidates for
other school professional roles to develop:

           awareness of the importance of diversity in teaching and learning; and
           the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions to adapt instruction and/or services
            for diverse populations, including linguistically and culturally diverse students and
            students with exceptionalities?



Unit faculty provides a culturally responsible pedagogy for initial and advanced preparation programs to
ensure that all candidates are aware of the importance of diversity in teaching and learning. There is an
increasing diversity of P-12 students in the state, as well as the nation. The unit's service area has a
population of which 11.3% speak a language other than English. Of this population, 8.6% speak
Spanish, compared to the national average of 10.7% who speak Spanish. The need for program
curriculum and field experiences that require candidates to be proficient in the knowledge and skills of
diversity is crucial to the candidate and student.

Initial and advanced program courses include diversity content, as well as field, clinical, and internship
experiences that are specifically designed to develop culturally responsive candidates. The unit’s
continuous improvement process regularly reviews diversity content in the curriculum using curriculum
mapping to ensure that, not only is the CF element of diversity infused into the curriculum at all levels
and across all programs, but that all elements of the CF are regularly mapped and aligned to include the
unit's diversity proficiencies.

Initial and advanced programs provide a well-grounded framework for understanding diversity. The
                                                  Page 56


unit’s curriculum prepares candidates to instruct students from culturally and linguistically diverse
backgrounds and students who have exceptionalities. This framework spirals in complexity as candidates
progress through initial programs and proceed through advanced programs. Candidates connect lessons
and instruction to students’ experiences and cultures through initial field experiences, student teaching,
and advanced clinical, practicum, and internship experiences. The unit provides all candidates with a
research based curriculum which scaffolds candidates from the more knowledge-based levels to
application, synthesis and evaluation. Through this sequence of courses and field experiences, the unit
achieves its ultimate goal of preparing a Professional Educator (CF) who respects and values all persons
and provides a supportive environment for diverse learners. Candidates implement teaching strategies
and curriculum designs that accommodate the special needs of individual learners as well as the cultural
differences that emanate from a multicultural environment in a global society (CF Goal IV).

Each initial and advanced program course is required to have a diversity goal, objective, and activity in
which candidates demonstrate the unit's diversity proficiencies.

Required Initial Courses:
IDS 350: Multiculturalism in the United States (all initial candidates)
TEEL 230: Diverse Learners (all elementary candidates)
TESP 302: Educating Exceptional Students (all initial candidates)
TESS 494: The Secondary School (all secondary candidates)
TESS 804: Understanding the Learner (all T2T candidates)
TESS 805: Working with Diverse and Exceptional Learners (all T2T candidates)

Required Advanced Courses:

All advanced candidates are required to take AEP 803: Educational Research or SPED 800 which
requires that candidates' research topics that address diversity as defined by the COET. "Differences
among groups of people and individuals based on culture, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status,gender,
exceptionalities, language, migrant status, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area.

All advanced teacher candidates and other school personnel with the exception of school counselor and
educational leadership are required to take AEP 880: Cultural Diversity.

School counseling candidates are required to take Coun 840: Social and Cultural Foundations of
Counseling.

Education administration candidates are required to take EDL 853: Special Education for School
Leaders.

All advanced programs infuse diversity throughout their curricula in program specific activities.
Candidates enrolled in practicum and internship courses demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and
professional dispositions to adapt instruction and/or services for diverse learners. Diversity proficiencies
are assessed through practicum course grades and aligned to diversity proficiencies using curriculum
mapping.

   4a.3. What key assessments provide evidence about candidates' proficiencies related to
diversity? How are candidates performing on these assessments?



Unit diversity proficiencies are measured at each transition point for initial and advanced programs.
                                                  Page 57


Data on candidate performance is recorded in the unit’s data collection system (STARS) and made
available to the unit, department, and programs.

Key unit assessments used to assess candidates' proficiencies related to diversity are:

Initial Programs: Disposition Assessment, Human Growth and Development Assessment, Teaching
Evaluation, School Board Meeting Report, Diverse Learner Exam, Cooperative Learning Activity,
Special Education Observation, Student Teaching Grade, Cooperating Teacher Evaluation, University
Supervisor Evaluation, Employer/Mentor Perception Survey, the Fort Hays State University
Performance Assessment (FPA), and the Education Benchmarking, Inc. Survey (EBI).

Transition to Teaching (T2T): Cooperating Teacher Evaluation, University Supervisor Evaluation,
Employer/Mentor Perception Survey, FHSU Performance Assessment (FPA), and the Education
Benchmarking, Inc. Survey (EBI)

Advanced Programs: Disposition Assessment, Candidate practicum and internship grades,
Employer/Mentor Perception Survey, Final Reflection Grade in Practicums, and Comprehensive Exams.

The Advanced Education Programs Department (AEP) in collaboration with the COET, Graduate
School, and the College of Business and Leadership developed a graduate survey to collect candidate
perceptions of how prepared they are for success in their field. The unit plans to use this nationally
normed survey as a companion assessment to the initial programs EBI Survey. Preparedness in diversity
proficiencies is a part of this survey. It was piloted in the AEP Department in spring 2008, and again by
the Graduate School in spring 2009. After refinement, the survey will be implemented in spring 2010.

   4a.4. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to diversity
proficiencies and assessments may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to
access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-5) should be uploaded.]
                                             Standard 4 Exhibits

See Attachments panel below.


4b. Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty

    4b.1. What opportunities do candidates (including candidates at off-campus sites and/or in
distance learning or alternate route programs) have to interact with higher education and/or
school-based faculty from diverse groups?


The unit offers opportunities for candidates in initial and advanced programs to interact with faculty
from diverse groups.

Candidates interact with faculty of African American, American Indian, Asian, and Hispanic ethnicities
during required courses.

On a regular basis, candidates have the opportunity to learn from scheduled speakers from diverse
backgrounds and experiences in their courses. Speakers include a Hispanic high school principal from a
school where the majority of the population is Hispanic; a faculty member speaking on exceptionalities;
the FHSU Diversity Coordinator, who is African American, speaking on issues related to gender and
persons with alternative lifestyles; a Hispanic educator with teaching expertise in an urban school
                                                  Page 58


district speaking on issues encountered with students who use English as a second language; and a
school administrator from a high poverty school district speaking on the impact of poverty on learning.

The unit has also had the opportunity to use international graduate assistants to provide candidates with a
first-hand perspective of teaching and learning in another country's educational system (i.e., Russia and
China).

Research indicates that 94% of school-based faculty in Kansas are white/non-Hispanic ethnicity. The
unit's cooperating teachers compare to this state statistic in that 100% are white/non-Hispanic ethnicity.

   4b.2. What knowledge and experiences do faculty have related to preparing candidates to work
with students from diverse groups?
The COET maintains an annual collaboration with other Kansas universities in planning and
implementing the statewide conference for faculty that is focused on the issues of diversity. Professional
education faculty have the opportunity for professional growth are the area of diversity that can impact
their instruction and interaction with candidates about diversity and working with students from diverse
groups.

Many faculty in both initial and advanced programs have traveled outside of the US to teach and present
in diverse settings. Faculty bring these rich multicultural experiences to the classroom. For example, an
instructor studied the Reggio Emilia Approach to early childhood education in Reggio Emilia, Italy, and
shared the tenets of this approach with candidates studying in the Early Childhood Unified Program.

Another faculty member traveled to Brazil to participate in a collaborative effort with the administration
of American schools in Brazilia, Brazil. Results of this diverse experience of schools in Brazil was
shared with candidates in the educational administration program.

Faculty are committed to creating candidate awareness of the importance of diversity that will impact
candidates' teaching and student learning. Faculty across the unit continue to travel and learn from other
cultures and school systems, and share new perceptions and knowledge with candidates. Faculty have
also studied and worked in countries such as Guatemala, England, France, Mexico, and Canada.

Many faculty have additional degrees other than their primary teaching assignment such as gifted special
education, adaptive special education, ESOL, reading, and foreign language. Faculty enrich candidate
learning by incorporating this expertise into their courses and as presenters in other programs.

In the Advanced Programs Department, an international online journal (Academic Leadership Journal)
was initiated for the purpose of advancing knowledge and scholarship in the field through research. The
journal is in its fifth year in the COET. AEP faculty designed the journal as a means of bringing greater
diversity to the unit and candidates by tapping into an international research community of which the
unit is a member. The journal has submissions from university and school-based faculty, including unit
faculty, from all over the world, presenting varying research perspectives. The journal is interactive and
gives candidates and faculty the opportunity to make connections with and to interact with journal
authors. The journal also has a section that invites candidates to submit their research and receive
interactive feedback.

Often the journal opens live discussions on critical topics that affect the world-wide research
community. Expertise and experiences are shared back and forth with the journal's candidates and
faculty in a forum style conversation.
                                                                   Page 59


   4b.3. How diverse are the faculty members who work with education candidates? [Diversity
characteristics in addition to those in Table 8 can also be presented and/or discussed, if data are
available, in response to other prompts for this element.] Please complete Table 8 or upload your
own table at Prompt 4b.5 below.

                                                               Table 8
                                                        Faculty Demographics



                   Prof. Ed. Faculty Who Teach    Prof. Ed. Faculty Who    Prof. Ed. Faculty Who Teach in
                                                                                                               All Faculty in the   School-based
                      Only in Initial Teacher    Teach Only in Advanced   Both Initial Teacher Preparation &
                                                                                                                   Institution         faculty
                      Preparation Programs               Programs                Advanced Programs
                                                                                                                     n (%)              n (%)
                               n (%)                       n (%)                         n (%)
American Indian
or Alaska Native           2 (5.00%)                   0 (0.00%)                     0 (0.00%)                    2 (0.50%)          0 (0.00%)
Asian                      1 (2.50%)                  1 (12.50%)                     0 (0.00%)                    6 (1.40%)          0 (0.00%)
Black or African
American, non-             2 (5.00%)                   0 (0.00%)                     1 (5.26%)                    6 (1.40%)          0 (0.00%)
Hispanic
Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacific           0 (0.00%)                   0 (0.00%)                     0 (0.00%)                    0 (0.00%)          0 (0.00%)
Islander
Hispanic or
Latino                     1 (2.50%)                   0 (0.00%)                     1 (5.26%)                    7 (1.60%)          0 (0.00%)
White, non-
Hispanic                  36 (85.00%)                 7 (87.50%)                    17 (89.47%)                 396 (92.00%)        198 (100%)
Two or more
races                      0 (0.00%)                   0 (0.00%)                     0 (0.00%)                    0 (0.00%)          0 (0.00%)
Other                      0 (0.00%)                   0 (0.00%)                     0 (0.00%)                    9 (2.00%)          0 (0.00%)
Race/ethnicity
Unknown                    0 (0.00%)                   0 (0.00%)                     0 (0.00%)                    5 (1.10%)          0 (0.00%)
Total                      42 (100%)                   8 (100%)                      19 (100%)                   430 (100%)         198 (100%)
Female                    25 (59.50%)                 5 (62.50%)                    10 (53.00%)                 202 (47.00%)        137 (69.2%)
Male                      17 (40.50%)                 3 (37.50%)                    9 (47.00%)                  228 (53.00%)        61 (30.8%)
Total                      42 (100%)                   8 (100%)                      19 (100%)                   430 (100%)         198 (100%)


    4b.4. What efforts does the unit make to recruit and retain a diverse faculty?

Faculty Recruitment:

The COET follows the recruitment for vacant position guidelines established for FHSU. The dean and
the assistant dean work with all search committees in recruitment.
1. The college maintains a listing of universities and colleges that graduate large numbers of doctoral
students from diverse ethnic, racial, gender, linguistic and special needs backgrounds (hereafter referred
to only as faculty of diversity or diverse backgrounds).
2. The college increases the visibility of FHSU at conferences, workshops and other professional
meetings by supporting faculty who attend gatherings that tend to have a large numbers of professionals
from diverse backgrounds. These faculty are supplied with recruiting materials.

The university and unit continue to recruit and retain diverse faculty. Since the previous accreditation
visit, the unit hired two faculty members who are African American. One faculty member was hired as
the chair of the advanced education programs department (0.5 FTE) and as an instructor (0.5 FTE).
Although this faculty member is no longer employed at the university, the other serves as a full time
faculty member in the teacher education department. An instructor of Native American ancestry was
successfully hired in fall 2009.

Faculty Retention:
1.The college and its departments provide support for faculty members from diverse backgrounds in
                                                             Page 60


committees, leadership positions, and other aspects of the academic program.
2. The college and its departments work with the community to develop a hospitable environment for
faculty members from diverse backgrounds.

    4b.5. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to faculty
diversity may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits
electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]

4c. Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates

    4c.1. What opportunities do candidates (including candidates at off-campus sites and/or in
distance learning or alternate route programs) have to interact with candidates from diverse
groups?

The most powerful learning experience one can have to understand issues of diversity is to experience
the reality of diversity. Adobe Connect, Skype and other interactive technology protocols are used to
bring candidates together. Candidates regularly interact with each other in Blackboard.

In addition to the unit’s requirements, the unit collaborates with the FHSU Diversity Awareness
Committee to provide opportunities for candidates to interact with students from diverse groups, and to
promote a positive attitude toward diversity among students. The unit also works with the Diversity
Awareness Committee to expand and improve sensitivity among candidates, faculty and the campus
community at-large (virtual and on-campus) to the importance of cultural identity and personal
relevance of diversity issues. The unit supports committee initiatives that promote and develop programs
that get candidates involved on campus and in the community. The Diversity Affairs Committee also
sponsors a Diversity Affairs Feature located at http://www.fhsu.edu/diversity_affairs/feature.phptopic.
The feature discusses diversity topics such as Cinco de Mayo and Asian Pacific Heritage Month.

In advanced programs, candidates are already practicing education professionals who are from diverse
groups and have diverse experiences. All candidates interact with each other through peer discussions on
Blackboard, interactive presentations using desktop conferencing (flash meeting, Adobe Connect,
Skype, and Eluminate), collaborative group projects, and reflection activities with peer feedback. Each
candidate brings not only the perspective of their current position in education to the dialogue, but also
their growing perspective of the role they are seeking in the AEP Department.

The unit has a professional development plan that includes diversity topics and book studies. Candidates
are invited to participate in these professional growth opportunities where they will not only interact
with faculty, but also interact with other candidates. Professional development is offered through a
variety of venues including on-campus, IPTV, digital streaming, and Adobe Connect.

    4c.2. How diverse are the candidates in initial teacher preparation and advanced preparation
programs? [Diversity characteristics in addition to those in Table 9 can also be presented and
discussed, if data are available, in other prompts of this element.] Please complete Table 9 or
upload your own table at Prompt 4c.4 below.

                                                          Table 9
                                                   Candidate Demographics


                   Candidates in Initial Teacher      Candidates in Advanced   All Students in the   Diversity of Geographical Area
                                                        Page 61


                           Preparation Programs   Preparation Programs      Institution     Served by Institution
                                   n (%)                  n (%)               n (%)                 (%)
American Indian or
Alaska Native                  2 (0.14%)              8 (0.82%)           102 (0.51%)         3360 (0.50%)
Asian                          3 (0.22%)              20 (2.05%)         5291 (26.66%)        6720 (1.00%)
Black or African
American, non-Hispanic         40 (2.87%)             27 (2.77%)          509 (2.56%)         14113 (2.10%)
Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander               0 (0.00%)              0 (0.00%)            0 (0.00%)            0 (0.00%)
Hispanic or Latino             44 (3.16%)            24 (2.46%)            550 (2.77%)       73257 (10.90%)
White, non-Hispanic          1255 (90.03%)          860 (88.21%)         12707 (64.02%)      598160 (89.00%)
Two or more races              6 (0.43%)              0 (0.00%)            48 (0.24%)         11425 (1.70%)
Other                          0 (0.00%)              0 (0.00%)             0 (0.00%)           0 (0.00%)
Race/ethnicity unknown         44 (3.16%)            36 (3.69%)            641 (3.23%)          0 (0.00%)
Total                         1394 (100%)            975 (100%)           19848 (100%)      707035 (105.20%)
Female                       1069 (76.69%)          728 (74.67%)         11669 (58.79%)      338734 (50.40%)
Male                          325 (23.31%)          247 (25.33%)         8179 (41.21%)       333357 (49.60%)
Total                         1394 (100%)            975 (100%)           19848 (100%)        672091 (100%)


   4c.3. What efforts does the unit make to recruit and retain candidates from diverse groups?
The unit supports the university-wide North Central Academic Quality Improvement Project (AQIP)
goal of increasing the number of Hispanic students at FHSU. FHSU’s primary service area is the 66
counties of western and north central Kansas. Growth in southwest Kansas can be attributed to the
rapidly increasing Hispanic population, up from 6% to 13% of the total population within the last
decade. FHSU has made it a critical mission to recruit and retain Hispanic students. The university has
hired a Hispanic professional to recruit Hispanic candidates in this region.

Recruitment:
1. Encourage faculty to work with recruitment and retention issues of candidates of diversity.

2. Support faculty with recruitment materials for distribution when attending selected national, regional
and state conferences for purposes of recruitment.

3. Collaborate with the Admissions Office to support recruitment of candidates of diversity.

4. Confer with the Office of Student Affairs and/or Multicultural Affairs to ensure that products and
services of special interest to diverse students (i.e. food, health, etc.) are available in the university or
community setting.

5. Continue to strengthen relationships with area P-12 schools and community colleges to support
recruitment of candidates of diversity.

6. Work with the Office of Student Affairs for the development of academic and social support groups to
be made available to candidates of diversity.

Retention:
1. Provide support for full utilization of candidates of diversity or who have had diversity-rich
experiences in sharing their unique qualities so other candidates can gain from their perspective and
increase the quality of all candidates’ academic program.

2. Work with the community to develop a hospitable environment for candidates of diversity.

3. Work with the Office of Multicultural Affairs to support an electronic publication dealing with
diversity issues in Kansas and surrounding areas.
                                                  Page 62


    4c.4. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to candidate
diversity may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits
electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]

4d. Experiences Working with Diverse Students in P-12 Schools

   4d.1. How does the unit ensure that candidates develop and practice knowledge, skills, and
professional dispositions related to diversity during their field experiences and clinical practice?

All candidates have the opportunity to develop and practice knowledge, skills and professional
dispositions related to diversity. Initial programs provide structured methods courses, internships, and
student teaching experiences that give candidates the opportunity to learn and practice proficiencies in
authentic settings. Placements are tracked per candidate and demographics are regularly monitored.

If candidates have not been in a diverse setting, they must complete their student teaching in a diverse
setting. Identifying the demographics of P-12 students allows the unit to monitor diversity on a
classroom level basis.

All initial level candidates are required to complete a CF reflection summary in their field experiences.
Candidates utilize the professional and content competencies for the applicable field experience and
reflect on diversity along with all goals of the CF. For example, elementary candidates practice the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions desired in teaching to students of diverse backgrounds through
Correction of Reading Disabilities. These experiences partner candidates, in a tutoring role, with
students in a school with a large minority population of students at the elementary level.

ECU candidates observe and implement lesson plans in a setting that provides the opportunity to learn a
culturally and linguistically responsive approach to serving children and families.

T2T candidates are professionally involved with issues of diversity in their work.

Advanced candidates are required to complete a practicum in the school/community where they are
teaching. If the school where they are teaching does not offer them the experience of diversity, they are
required to obtain these experiences in another setting that will provide required diversity experiences.
In this way, the program faculty can be assured that the candidates are receiving experiences in teaching
or providing services to students from diverse cultures and/or who use English as a second language.

Advanced candidates also experience program specific activities in their clinical practicum and
internships. For example, special education candidates are required to compose and present a
demographic report requiring candidates to research information about their school and community.
Candidates provide background information about their students' race/ethnicity, home language,
socioeconomic status, gender and age.

    4d.2. How diverse are the P-12 students in the settings in which candidates participate in field
experiences and clinical practice? Please complete Table 10 or upload your own table at Prompt
4d.4 below. [Although NCATE encourages institutions to report the data available for each school
used for clinical practice, units may not have these data available by school. If the unit uses more
than 20 schools for clinical practice, school district data may be substituted for school data in the
table below. In addition, data may be reported for other schools in which field experiences, but not
clinical practice, occur. Please indicate where this is the case.]

                                                Table 10
                                                                 Page 63


              Demographics on Sites for Clinical Practice in Initial and Advanced Programs



                                                                                                         Students
                                 Black or  Native
            American                                                                                     receiving
                                 African Hawaiian                 White,    Two or            Race /                  English   Students
  Name of   Indian or                                Hispanic                                              free /
                        Asian   American, or Other                 non-      more    Other   ethnicity               language     with
   school    Alaska                                  or Latino                                            reduced
                                  non-     Pacific               Hispanic    races           unknown                  learners disabilities
             Native                                                                                         price
                                Hispanic Islander
                                                                                                           lunch




     4d.3. How does the unit ensure that candidates use feedback from peers and supervisors to
reflect on their skills in working with students from diverse groups?
 Initial Programs Field Placement and Student Teaching Feedback:
 During field experiences and student teaching candidates have specific activities that attend to areas of
 diverse needs and include making such adaptations as re-teaching and enrichment for students from
 diverse backgrounds and students with special needs such as English language learners. They interact
 and receive feedback from college supervisors, cooperating teachers, and mentors during field
 experiences, student teaching observations, and evaluation conferences. Candidates are required to
 complete reflection activities focusing on diversity during student teaching and the FPA.

Advanced Programs Feedback:
During field experiences and program practicums, candidates are required to understand and analyze
demographics regarding background information about their students: race/ethnicity; home language,
socioeconomic status, gender and age. Candidates interact with and receive feedback from
practicum/internship professional faculty and school-based mentors on meeting the needs of diverse
learners in P-12 schools.

Peer Feedback:
Both initial and advanced candidates share their issues and successes in regard to teaching and serving
students of diversity in P-12 schools. Classroom interactions enable candidates’ classmates to provide
feedback and suggestions. Discussion boards in Blackboard are often used as a tool for peer feedback.

    4d.4. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the diversity
of P-12 students in schools in which education candidates do their field experiences and clinical
practice may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits
electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]
                   Table 10: Demographics of Sites for Clinical Practice in Initial and Advanced Programs

See Attachments panel below.


Optional

    1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 4?

The unit understands the importance of diversity and the need for all candidates to be aware of the
importance of diversity and to be committed to the philosophy that all students can learn in a fair and
equitable learning environment. The unit does an excellent job of scaffolding content and skills related
to diversity throughout the curriculum, within required courses, and in clinical experiences.
                                                 Page 64


   2. What research related to Standard 4 is being conducted by the unit or its faculty?

Dale, K. (2008). Differentiated instruction. Presentation at the Association of American Schools of
Brazil Principals’ Conference, Brasilia, Brazil.

Dale, K. (2006). Characteristics of children in poverty. Presentation at the College of Education and
Technology Embracing Diversity Day, Hays, KS.

Davis, T., Calahan, J., Cepello, M., & Mercer, D. (2006). Affirming diversity through community based
service-learning strategies: What Candidates Should Learn and Be Able to Do. Paper and presentation at
the American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education, San Diego, CA.

Fulton, D.L. & Zellner, E.A. (2008). Diversity on campus: Self-evaluation. Presentation at the Camp
College at Fort Hays State University, Hays, KS.

Fulton, D. L., & Kozel, W., (2007). Inclusive education: Systems change in a rural special education
cooperative. Proposal accepted for refereed presentation at Council for Exceptional Children’s Annual
International Convention and Expo, Louisville, KY.

Hattan, C.J. (2008) Counseling children & adolescents: diagnosis & treatment of mental disorders.
Presentation at the Kansas Counseling Association Preconference Workshop, Topeka, KS.

Hauck, R. (2007). The demographic and cultural influence of Spanish on bilingual education in Texas;
La influencia demográfica y cultural de lenguaje español en Texas. E-Learn 2007 Proceedings CD.

Hauck, R. (2009). Immersion in another language and culture through multimedia and web resources.
Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications.
Ed-Media 2009. Chesapeake, VA: AACTE.

Howell, R. (2007). Integrate, involve, and inspire special needs students. Presentation at the Kentucky
Association for Career and Technical Education, Louisville, KY.

(Full listing of Standard 4 Scholarship available upon request)

STANDARD 5. FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS, PERFORMANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT


   Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and
 teaching, including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate
 performance; they also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit
 systematically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.

 [In this section the unit must include the professional education faculty in (1) initial and
 advanced programs for teachers, (2) programs for other school professionals, and (3) off-
 campus, distance learning, and alternate route programs, noting differences when they exist.]


5a. Qualified Faculty


   5a.1. What are the qualifications of the full- and part-time professional education faculty (e.g.,
earned degrees, experience, and expertise)? Please complete Table 11 or upload your own table at
                                                  Page 65


Prompt 5a.5 below. [Professional Education Faculty information compiled by AIMS from earlier
reports submitted for the national review of programs and updated by your institution (see Manage
Faculty Information page in your AIMS workspace) can be imported into Table 11. For further
guidance on completing this table, see the directions provided below (select link "click here") as
well as in the Help document (click on "Help" in the upper right corner of your screen.)]

                                              Table 11
                                    Faculty Qualification Summary


FacultyInfo_2716_1627_29435.xls
See Attachments panel below.

   5a.2. What expertise qualifies professional education faculty members who do not hold terminal
degrees for their assignments?

The unit fills positions with highly qualified individuals who have terminal degrees in their respective
fields and who have teaching experience in the P-12 school systems. Faculty hired without the
appropriate terminal degrees are hired on one-year temporary contracts. Faculty are notified during the
hiring process that they must complete the terminal degree requirement prior to earning a tenure track
position. The University encourages and supports faculty in obtaining terminal degrees by providing
release time, professional leave, professional development funds and grants and/or loans for qualifying
faculty.

In most cases, the terminal degree is a doctorate. Exceptions can be made at the department level. For
example, the COET Technology Studies Department the accepted terminal degree is the master in
technology plus 10 years of teaching technology or industry experience in the area technology. In the
College of Arts and Sciences art department accepted terminal degree is the Masters of Fine Arts
(MFA).

   5a.3. How many of the school-based faculty members are licensed in the areas they teach or are
supervising? How does the unit ensure that school-based faculty members are adequately licensed?

School-based faculty in partnering P-12 school districts are required to hold a valid teaching license in
the area that they teach and are supervising. Local school districts sign a contract with the COET that
school-based faculty are licensed and highly qualified to teach in their content areas. This contract
serves as a guarantee to the unit that 100% of school-based faculty meet the unit’s requirements.

In addition to the contract, all cooperating teachers are surveyed each semester to verify that they are
licensed in the area and at the level in which they are serving.

The unit does not place candidates in school settings where there is not a qualified school-based faculty
member. All school based faculty members supervising candidates are licensed in their discipline and
have experience as a supervisor in school settings or have been identified as master teachers (awards,
recognition, and/or recommendation by supervisor).

  5a.4. What contemporary professional experiences do higher education clinical faculty
members have in school settings?

Eighty-eight percent of the unit’s professional faculty members have P-12 teaching experience. Faculty
                                                  Page 66


continue to work in a variety of school settings in such capacities as mentors, supervisors and in-service
trainers for P-12 teachers (i.e., career pathways for career and technical education, ESOL standards in
school curricula, and classroom management for teachers). Faculty remains current on P-12 school
policy and standards by serving at the state level such as KSDE advisory boards and quality assurance
review committees.

   5a.5. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to faculty
qualifications may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many
exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]
                                            Standard 5 Exhibits

See Attachments panel below.


5b. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching

    5b.1. How does instruction by professional education faculty reflect the conceptual framework
as well as current research and developments in the fields?

The CF is expressed clearly and succinctly throughout the unit’s teacher preparation and other school
professional programs. It provides direction for programs, courses, instruction, candidate performance,
scholarship, service, and unit accountability.

Unit faculty align course objectives to the CF elements and goals, and integrate CF elements into course
activities and assessments. The CF goals combine to form the foundation for educating candidates as
professional educators who demonstrate professional behavior consistent with the belief that all students
can learn. All unit, department and program decisions are benchmarked against the CF goals.

The unit’s CF is research and theory based. This intellectual base is continually updated through faculty
research and professional development. The conceptual framework integrates and assimilates theory,
practical experience, instruction, and reflections.

All programs annually review and evaluate program performance and submit annual data reports
indicating conceptual framework alignment, areas for improvement, and program improvement plans.
Based on this process of unit and program improvement, all program course content and instruction
reflect the current research and theory base of the CF.

The KSDE program review process is also fundamental in ensuring that professional education faculty
reflect the unit's CF through program instruction and assessment.

   5b.2. How do unit faculty members encourage the development of reflection, critical thinking,
problem solving, and professional dispositions?

The unit’s CF goals include the development of critical thinking and independent problem solving (CF
Goals I, II, and III) and planning educational strategies based on individual student growth in the areas
of cognitive, emotional, linguistic, social fairness and physical development (CF Goals IV, V, VI, and
VII). The refinement of practices is based on reflection, multiple, and ongoing assessment strategies, and
learning (Conceptual Framework Goals VI and VII).

All candidates are regularly assessed to ensure they understand and are able to apply in practice these
                                                   Page 67


teaching skills.

This is evidenced in the FPA where initial candidates are required to identify students’ learning styles,
and make instructional adaptations to meet the needs of all students. A review of candidates’ FPA
evaluations indicates that the average FPA score for elementary candidates is 83.72 %, secondary
candidates is 83.49%, and Transition to Teaching (T2T) candidates is 93.50%.

This is evidenced in course specific activities and program specific comprehensive examinations where
advanced candidates demonstrate reflection, critical thinking and problem solving skills.

Unit faculty unit work with candidates in developing appropriate role-related professional dispositions.
Assessment of candidate dispositions is completed at designated transition points in the unit's evaluation
system (FQAS). Unit faculty also promote professional dispositions through individualized advising
with all candidates.

   5b.3. What types of instructional strategies and assessments do unit faculty members model?


Faculty not only teach a variety of instructional strategies, but also model appropriate instructional
strategies. Instructional strategies and assessments are research-based.

Key unit and program assessments are clearly described and included in the KSDE program reports.
Assessments are both formative and summative, and include performance-based assessments, local
assessments, and standardized assessments.

Faculty incorporate a wide range of instructional strategies such as: written essay, short answer,
matching, and multiple choice tests (in-class and take home exams), skills assessment of selected
performances such as demonstration of selected psychomotor skills, oral presentations, evaluation of
lessons taught, authentic interviews, lesson and unit plans, and reflections on field experiences.
Assessments also include the use of checklists, rubrics, reflective papers and journals, annotated
bibliographies, lab reports, critiques of research articles, completion of literature reviews, online and
classroom discussions, interest inventories, pre- and post-surveys, midterm and final written exams,
research papers, projects, group projects, and grant proposals.

   5b.4. How do unit faculty members incorporate the use of technology into instruction?

Unit faculty members are well versed in incorporating technology in instruction. FHSU has the
distinction of having a “High Tech, High Touch” campus where all on-campus classrooms are mediated.
A mediated classroom is one that incorporates the latest forms of presentation technology. The typical
mediated classroom employs technology such as; projectors which are linked to PC /Apple computers
and automatically lowering screens, DVD/VHS players, and projectors. These classrooms also include
whiteboards and wireless Internet access. Many courses and programs are offered online, thus
technology usage and understanding is vital.

A survey of unit faculty identified three forms of technology as the most often used by the full time unit
faculty. The use of Blackboard software (used to manage e-learning) was ranked by 82.98% of faculty,
66.67% of faculty indicated that they often used mediated classrooms. Also ranked high (55.56%) was
the use of laptop/tablets in instruction. The use of digital, still, and video cameras in teaching was
indicated by 43.48% of unit faculty.
                                                  Page 68


The survey also allowed the respondents to include specific forms of technology that they utilized which
were not listed on the survey. These technologies included: Classroom 2.o Skype, Adobe Connect,
Presentation Software, Heart Monitors, Pedometers, GPSs, Wii, Xavix, iPods, Elluminate-Now, clickers,
Articulate Presenter, ooVoo, Flash Meeting, and Facebook.

As the technology used to enhance instruction advances, the unit faculty at Fort Hays State University
embraces its usage to insure the best possible instruction.

    5b.5. How do unit faculty members systematically engage in self-assessment of their own
teaching?

Faculty members use various methods of self-assessment of their teaching. The FHSU tenure process
requires that tenure-track faculty conduct self-assessment and use the results to improve instruction.

According to data collected from faculty, the most frequently used systems of self-assessment are
through use of personal reflections of teaching strategies (99.79%), and by meeting with students
individually
(88 %.)

Analysis of written comments and numerical ratings provided through the FHSU Teacher Evaluation
course evaluation tool (TEVAL) was utilized by 93.76% of the faculty to evaluate and improve
instruction.

Faculty use peer reviews as a self-reflection tool. The unit developed a peer review form to encourage
and facilitate peer reviews in improving instruction. Several faculty members emphasized the positive
benefits of using collaboration with other faculty to critically analyze and modify teaching strategies.

Still other faculty solicit student feedback on teaching through email, face-to-face meetings, review of
video-taped lectures, co-teaching, and online course design and instruction surveys as strategies for self
assessment of teaching.

    5b.6. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to faculty
teaching may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits
electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]

5c. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship

   5c.1. What types of scholarly work are expected of faculty as part of the institution's and unit's
mission?

Professional unit faculty is expected to be involved in scholarship and professional development that
advances the profession and enhances instructor expertise in research and teaching. Faculty are also
expected to conduct scholarly work that exemplifies the faculty member at his or her best. Typically,
scholarly work comprises 20% of the faculty members work load.

Scholarly activities at FHSU are defined as “original, innovative intellectual contributions in the form of
research, practice, creative activity, or performance. FHSU recognizes and values the diversity of types
of scholarship including discovery, pedagogy, integration, engagement, and application. Scholarly
activities must be intended and reasonably expected to lead to the production of scholarly works.
Scholarly works must be communicated with and validated by peers beyond the FHSU campus
                                                   Page 69


community." The means of communication as well as the comparative value of types of scholarly
activity and work are to be determined by each department. These determinations will reflect what is
commonly accepted in the discipline.

     5c.2. In what types of scholarship activities are faculty members engaged? How is their
scholarship related to teaching and learning? What percentage of the unit's faculty is engaged in
scholarship? (Review the definition of scholarship in the NCATE glossary.) [A table could be
attached at Prompt 5c.3 below to show different scholarly activities in which faculty members are
involved and the number involved in each activity.]
 Full-time faculty (100%) in the unit are engaged in scholarly activities. Faculty is evaluated annually for
 tenure, promotion and merit based on teaching, scholarly activities and service. Most faculty are
 contractually bound to 20% of their time engaged in scholarly activities. The Boyer model of
 scholarship (including research, integration, application and teaching) is the basis for scholarly activities
 in the COET.

Most scholarship by COET faculty and associated unit colleagues relates to strategies involving teaching
and learning across the life-span. With the development of new programs involving early childhood, our
scientific inquiry involves children at a much younger age. With an emphasis on distance and online
learning, we are actively investigating pedagogy related to lifetime learners. This quest to enhance our
knowledge across the ages has led to great variety in our scholarly pursuits. In the past three years,
COET faculty have written and published over 115 articles in refereed and non-refereed publications,
and presented more than 380 papers at professional meetings, workshops and conferences. These
professional papers and presentations included work representing quantitative and qualitative research,
new teaching and learning strategies, educational administration, technological development, theoretical
constructs and other scholarly endeavors.

Academic leadership and grant writing were other major areas of scholarship engaged in by the faculty
of the COET having successfully written 17 grants, receiving a total of $1,196,958 during the 2008-
2009 academic year. During the past three years, nearly 50 successful grants have been written which
have resulted in approximately six million dollars revenue. Successful grants have resulted in provision
of a number of educational activities such as: teacher quality and student learning in mathematics and
science; educational strategies through technology; improved early educational services to
Hispanic/Latino children; educational efforts in rural communities; teaching American history;
stimulation of early reading in children; assistive technology; early childhood; leadership and diversity.

The COET Academic Leadership Online Journal promotes scholarship. During the past four years,
nearly 400 authors have published empirical research in this international journal. Faculty are editors for
state newsletters and journals (ie. Taggart and Young-KATM, Andrews-KATS, and Sanders-KRA

COET faculty are involved with developing scholarly partnerships with local school districts, work with
state department on planning and development, and interaction with national and international
professional organizations for the enhancement of education. For example, the music department
partners with P-12 schools to enable students to study music with professional education music
instructors in a summer band camp. The art department collaborates with P-12 schools on a regional
high school art show.

    5c.3. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to faculty
scholarship may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits
electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]
                                                  Page 70


5d. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service

   5d.1. What types of service are expected of faculty as part of the institution's and the unit's
mission?

Each professional unit faculty is expected to perform service activities. Service is required by the
University for tenure, merit and promotion as stated in the University Faculty Handbook and in the
MOA (Memorandum of Agreement) between FHSU and the faculty bargaining unit AAUP (American
Association of University Professors). There are three general categories of service for faculty members:
service to the faculty member’s profession, service to FSHU, and service to the community.

Service to the profession includes, but is not limited to, state, regional, or national offices held in
professional organization, organizing a professional workshop or meeting, and other related activities.

Service to FHSU includes, but is not limited to, committee assignments chair or member), offices held
(elective or appointed), involvement in campus activities (Parents' Day, high school workshops, etc.),
part-time contributions to recruitment or retention of students. This service includes activities in support
of the department, the college, and the University.

Community service is related to faculty professional expertise. For example, faculty serve in such
community service roles as the CASA of the High Plains (Court Appointed Special Advocate), the City
Councilor (Mayor) for the City of La Crosse, the director of the High Plains Childrens' Music Camp,
and the VE-2 Funding Advisor Board Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Threatened &
Endangered Species Committee.

    5d.2. In what types of service activities are faculty members engaged? Provide examples of
faculty service related to practice in P-12 schools and service to the profession at the local, state,
national, and international levels (e.g., through professional associations). What percentage of the
faculty is actively involved in these various types of service activities? [A table could be attached at
Prompt 5d.3 below to show different service activities in which faculty members are involved and
the number involved in each activity.]


Professional unit faculty model best practices in service as part of their commitment to education.
Faculty have attended and participated in over 180 professional conferences at the local, state, national
and international levels. Faculty hold memberships in over 150 professional organizations. Unit faculty
have assumed leadership roles in the profession, serving on over 600 committees as members and chairs.
Faculty are involved with work in with P-12 schools in a variety of collaborations/partnerships. Faculty
provide pre-service and in-service workshops and seminars, and are members of advisory and
governance boards.

    5d.3. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to faculty
service may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits
electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]

5e. Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance

    5e.1. How are faculty evaluated? How regular, systematic, and comprehensive are the unit
evaluations of adjunct/part-time, tenured, and non-tenured faculty, as well as graduate teaching
assistants?
                                                  Page 71




Faculty are evaluated annually and systematically using university, unit, and department policies. The
COET develops an evaluation policy in accordance with the Faculty Handbook, the MOA, and the
AAUP. The department’s annual review policy is approved by faculty, the college dean, and the provost.


The COET departments' annual review policy involves faculty review of all assigned duties. At the
review, faculty has the opportunity to meet with their respective chair to negotiate the percentage of
time/involvement in each category for a particular year. Further, all unit faculty are evaluated during the
annual review process by the respective department chair.

The university requires a teacher evaluation (TEVAL student instrument) as part of the annual
evaluation and tenure process. All faculty are evaluated every semester to assess classroom performance
and if changes in performance or content are warranted. These candidate evaluations, along with advisor
evaluations, are reviewed to help faculty grow and improve in instructional performance and advising.

Department chairs follow the procedures in their annual review policy to assess the performance of each
full-time faculty member, and a written evaluation is given to the faculty member. Each faculty member
is invited to meet with the department chair to negotiate the Annual Statement of Responsibilities. The
goals and objectives of the faculty member are written to be consistent with the CF and to reflect the
core values of the department. Each faculty member reviews the annual evaluation and discusses the
written evaluation with the department chair. Before the chair submits the evaluation to the dean, each
faculty must sign a statement acknowledging the opportunity to review and discuss the evaluation.

Tenure-track faculty are evaluated each year as part of the tenure and promotion processes established
by the university in the Faculty Handbook and the MOA. Documentation is submitted each fall and
reviewed at multiple levels including a departmental committee, the department chair, and the college
dean. Year three and four tenure track faculty are also evaluated by a college-level committee. Year five
and six are additionally evaluated by a university-level committee and the provost.

Each year faculty develop professional growth plans, including strategic plans in the areas of teaching,
professional and scholarly activities, and service during the year. The department chair, in consultation
with the faculty member, reviews and approves these professional development plans.

School faculty in the unit who serve as cooperating teachers and supervisors are evaluated yearly by
their students. This information is used by the director of field experiences in performance reviews.

Graduate assistants (GA) are evaluated by their respective department chairs. GA's do not teach classes,
however they do support faculty teaching, scholarship, and service responsibilities

   5e.2. How well do faculty perform on the unit's evaluations? [A table summarizing faculty
performance could be attached at Prompt 5e.4 below.)


A review of the TEVAL, a student assessment of teaching effectiveness, illustrates that the COET full-
time faculty have achieved a mean score of 4.02 on a 5.00 scale.

Adjuncts and part-time faculty are evaluated using department specific procedures. Adjunct and part-
time faculty is evaluated using the same student teaching evaluation forms as full-time faculty and have
obtained a 4.03 on a 5.00 scale.
                                                Page 72


Examination of the annual faculty reviews indicate in 2008-2009, 14.7% of temporary, tenured, or tenure
track faculty met department expectations while 85.3% exceeded the established expectations.

   5e.3. How are faculty evaluations used to improve teaching, scholarship, and service?

A fundamental purpose of faculty evaluation is to produce judgments on the effectiveness of one’s
performance in teaching, scholarship and service. Faculty renewal, development, and improvement are
critically important to the university and the COET in the pursuit of excellence.

Each department chair provides written feedback to faculty to maintain high levels of performance and
promote faculty development. The department chair develops faculty evaluations using data sources
such as TEVAL, advisor evaluations, departmental goals, and faculty development plans. The
department chair and the faculty member discuss and set goals, direction, and support for improvement
in the coming year.

Faculty members also have a personal responsibility to maintain or improve performance and are
encouraged and supported to participate in professional development activities. For that reason,
evaluation conferences between the department chair and the faculty member are collaborative in nature.
The faculty member can also bring in performance data to the conference such as peer evaluations and
unsolicited student feedback.

The department chair also collects evidence of faculty scholarship for the annual evaluations to ensure
that faculty are engaged in focused scholarship as determined by each department. These determinations
will reflect what is commonly accepted in the faculty member's discipline. The department chair is a
source of support and guidance for faculty in improving and focusing their scholarship.

At the same time the department chair collects evidence of faculty scholarship, he or she collects
evidence of faculty service. These determinations will reflect what is commonly accepted in the COET,
department, program and community. The department chair is a source of support and guidance for
faculty in ensuring that service efforts are related to faculty's expertise.

    5e.4. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the unit's
evaluation of professional education faculty may be attached here. [Because BOE members should
be able to access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be
uploaded.]

5f. Unit Facilitation of Professional Development

  5f.1. How is professional development related to needs identified in unit evaluations of faculty?
How does this occur?

Professional development is one key component within the unit’s total process of evaluating faculty.
Faculty development fulfills two roles in the unit’s faculty evaluation system: formative and summative.


Formative: During individual faculty evaluations, the department chair collaborates with faculty to
evaluate performance. Formative dialogue generally focuses on faculty who are performing “at
expectations” or “exceeding expectation.” These written evaluations and collaborative conversations are
about leading faculty to higher levels of performance and job satisfaction. One means of accomplishing
higher levels of performance and job satisfaction is through meaningful professional development
                                                  Page 73


opportunities.

Summative: Should faculty perform at levels of “unsatisfactory” or “needs improvement,” critical
dialogues between the department chair and faculty member identify specific needs of improvement and
the development of an action plan to map out strategies for improvement and document change. Again,
professional development may be a strategy within the improvement plan.

Faculty is required to develop a three year professional development plan and to align their plan goals
with the program, department, unit and the university. In turn, faculty can expect to receive financial
support for development activities at the department, unit and university levels. Faculty development
plans become a part of each faculty member’s annual Statement of Responsibility. The university
provided $9, 582 in support of faculty professional development and the unit provided $40,418 in
professional development support. In addition, unit funding for candidates’ professional growth was
provided to 62 candidates.

     5f.2. What professional development activities are offered to faculty related to performance
assessment, diversity, technology, emerging practices, and/or the unit's conceptual framework?
 The unit’s overall professional development plan is developed with input from a variety of venues such
 as: data retreats (unit initial and advanced), commonalities gleaned from faculty evaluations, conceptual
 framework elements, professional development needs assessments and unit improvement plans (Unit
 Faculty Development Matrix). The unit’s professional development plan takes into consideration
 continuing development for seasoned faculty, new faculty development, and candidate professional
 development.

The unit’s overall professional development plan is a combination of specific plans developed for each
element of the conceptual framework. Conceptual Framework elements include: Reflection Technology,
Assessment, Diverse Needs, Liberal Education, Pedagogy, and Academic Discipline. These specific
plans are largely driven by the curriculum mapping process. Curriculum maps are analyzed and resulting
data determines what professional development opportunities will be planned for candidates and faculty
(Example Maps: Diversity, Technology and Reflection).

    5f.3. How often does faculty participate in professional development activities both on and off
campus? [Include adjunct/part-time, tenured, and non-tenured faculty, as well as graduate
teaching assistants.]

Professional development activities are ongoing throughout each semester at the university, college,
department and program levels. Adjunct/part-time, tenured, non-tenured faculty, candidates, and
graduate teaching assistants are encouraged to attend various event. Many activities are repeated to
provide multiple opportunities to attend. Activities use a variety of modes to accommodate on-campus
and off-campus attendees: iPod recordings, digital streaming, Blackboard courses, face-to-face seminars,
IPTV connects, and desktop-to-desktop conferencing. Every effort is made to digitize face-to-face
seminars. These are archived for faculty who were unable to attend the live session.

The unit selects professional development topics for faculty and staff that meet the needs of the COET,
departments, programs and faculty. Topics are aligned with the conceptual framework and have
included poverty, strategic thinking, leadership, and mentoring.

Department chairs select professional development topics that are specific to the department, program
and faculty such as technology, curriculum development, and assessment. Chairs use data from faculty
evaluations to identify growth opportunities for faculty and appropriate improvement experiences.
                                                 Page 74




All faculty are encouraged to attend off campus professional development at the regional, state, national
and international levels. The university, COET, and departments provide adequate support funding for
these initiatives.

    5f.4. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the unit's
facilitation of professional development may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be
able to access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be
uploaded.]

Optional

   1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 5?

Unit faculty do an exceptional job of modeling teaching excellence as evidenced through scholarly
presentations, service to school partners, and student evaluations.

   2. What research related to Standard 5 is being conducted by the unit or its faculty?

Adams, P., Legleiter, E., Davies, M., Seimears, M., Hrepic, Z., & Walizer, B. (2008). University
partnership to deliver statewide professional development. Science Scope, 31(6), 20-24.

Fahey, R., & Finch, A. (2007) Disseminating Scholarship: Alternatives to parchment. Presentation at the
Second Annual Midwestern Conference on Research at Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions,
Hays, KS.

Sanders, K.J. & Borchers, C.A. (2009). A framework for faculty scholarship in teacher education.
Presentation at the 4th Annual Midwest Conference on Research at Predominately Undergraduate
Institutions, Kearney, NB.

STANDARD 6. UNIT GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES


   The unit has the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources, including
 information technology resources, for the preparation of candidates to meet professional, state,
 and institutional standards.

 [In this section the unit must include (1) initial and advanced programs for teachers, (2)
 programs for other school professionals, and (3) off-campus, distance learning, and alternate
 route programs, noting differences when they exist.]


6a. Unit Leadership and Authority

   6a.1. How does the unit manage or coordinate the planning, delivery, and operation of all
programs at the institution for the preparation of educators?


The unit decision-making structure manages and coordinates the planning, delivery, and operation of all
programs at the institution for the preparation of educators at both the initial and advanced level. The
                                                 Page 75



College of Education and Technology (COET) is the organizational body responsible for the
Professional Education Unit (PEU) at Fort Hays State University (FHSU). Consisting of administrators,
faculty, and support staff members from four colleges (Arts and Sciences, Business and Leadership,
Education and Technology, and Health and Life Sciences), the unit has developed an infrastructure of
ongoing communication and collaboration. While leadership within the unit rests primarily with the
Dean of the COET, she is assisted by the Assistant Dean/NCATE Coordinator, the Licensure Officer, the
Director of Field Experiences, and department chairs. The Dean of Graduate Studies also works closely
with the unit to support programs at the advanced level.

As unit head, the Dean of COET serves as the university liaison with the Kansas State Department of
Education (KSDE) and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). The
dean chairs the Council on the Preparation of Teachers and School Personnel (COPTSP), which serves
as the governance committee that advises and assists the dean in all phases of the teacher education
program, including approval of all applications to teacher education and student teaching. The COPTSP
develops policies for education programs, both initial and advanced. The committee reviews changes in
curricula for the preparation of teachers, administrators and other school personnel with input from unit
faculty, candidates, administrators, and P-12 practitioners. The policy, course, and program approval
flowchart graphically represents the flow of courses, programs, and policy change approvals.
Assessment data feeds into the structure at all levels of decision-making.

The Assistant Dean/NCATE Coordinator assists the unit head and in her absence provides leadership for
the COET and PEU. She provides leadership and guidance to all members of the PEU in ensuring its
compliance with NCATE, state and professional organization standards. This involves chairing regular
meetings of the NCATE steering committee and serving as the liaison between this committee and the
PEU.

The Licensure Officer processes applications for admission to teacher education, student teaching, and
KSDE teaching licenses and endorsements (initial and advanced). She is the recipient of all testing
reports required of candidates for licensure and serves as a liaison with KSDE. She is the contact person
for Title II Reporting, the Transition to Teaching (T2T) program, and restricted licenses.

The Director of Field Experiences is responsible for coordinating with P-12 schools the placement of all
education field experiences including student teaching and assignment of supervisors. He serves as the
chair of the Clinical Practices Committee (Standard 3).

Department chairs provide leadership to insure efficient implementation of the academic programs. This
involves oversight of program revisions, faculty recruitment and retention, class scheduling, faculty
office hours, assignment of office and laboratory space, and maintenance of departmental records
including follow-up studies of graduates. Chairs also prepare, submit, and oversee their respective
departmental budgets; assign faculty workloads; make committee assignments; orient new faculty; and
coordinate faculty and staff evaluations.

Unit policies may originate from faculty (including administrators), P-12 partners, or from candidates.
Recommendations flow through academic departments to the unit level and receive discussion at
COPTSP for recommendation to the unit head for approval or further action. Both COPTSP and the unit
head receive advisement and input from a variety of campus and community committees and councils.
An important stakeholder group that provides programmatic feedback and recommendations to the unit
is the Superintendent Forum. This body of educational leaders meets bi-annually with unit leaders and
faculty to review educational needs and issues effecting initial and advanced preparation programs.
Program and course changes may originate from faculty, administrators, community members,
stakeholder groups, or candidates. Changes flow through the effected department to COPTSP, the
                                                   Page 76


Faculty Senate (initial), and the Graduate School (advanced). The Faculty Senate to the unit head for
recommendation refers policies, courses, or programs initiated outside the unit, which effect teacher
education. Organizational charts reflect the administrative structure at the university level, as well as the
academic organization structure. A unit personnel chart reveals the organizational structure that brings
candidates, faculty, P-12 constituents, and administrators together for the enhancement of initial and
advanced education programs.

   6a.2. What are the unit's recruiting and admissions policies? How does the unit ensure that they
are clearly and consistently described in publications and catalogues?


Recruitment is an essential component of the unit’s marketing plan. COET has strengthened its
relationship with area P-12 schools and community colleges to support recruitment of candidates from
diverse ethnic, racial, and linguistic backgrounds. Individual initial and advanced program areas recruit
candidates through both on-campus and off-campus activities. Recruiting is facilitated through a variety
of means including the Admissions Office with full time admissions counselors; high school visits to
schools in Kansas, southern Nebraska, and Eastern Colorado; internet and webcast recruitment
techniques; direct mail; and personal phone calls. Due to the growing virtual presence of COET
programs, the FHSU Virtual College (VC) is a valuable partner with the unit in publicizing initial and
advanced programs, and recruiting prospective candidates.

Admission policies for initial level teacher education candidates are clearly identified in all available
forms: university catalog, program brochures, and on university, college, department, and program
websites. Advanced degree programs have program specific admission standards, but all must meet the
Graduate School requirements specified in the university catalog, their brochures, and on the Graduate
School website. Advanced department program admission requirements are found in program
information sent from the program departments and a variety of locations on websites.

There are a number of different places where candidates can obtain information about the admission
policies of the university and the Professional Teacher Education Program specifically, including the
COET and FHSU websites, undergraduate catalog, graduate catalog, and the Office of Professional
Services located in Rarick Hall 220. All printed initial and advanced program information and website
sections that address teacher education policies are regularly reviewed by the dean’s office prior to
publishing.

    6a.3. How does the unit ensure that its academic calendars, catalogues, publications, grading
policies, and advertising are accurate and current?

The unit has an internal review process that ensures that all publications are reviewed and updated at
least on an annual basis. The COET website manager maintains the college website, and collaborates
with the Virtual College and University website managers to keep information consistent, current, and
accurate across all virtual sites relevant to the unit.

Academic Calendars:
The unit continually updates unit specific information on the university academic calendar. The
academic calendar is online and can be updated at needed.

University Catalog:
The unit monitors updates and changes in course titles, descriptions, hours of credit, prerequisites,
numbers of courses and academic requirements. It is the primary source of information about academic
                                                  Page 77


matters and every effort is made to provide current and accurate information. The catalog and class
schedules are available only online.

Publications:
Unit specific print and online publications are also part of the annual review process. The dean's office,
department chairs and staff, and program coordinators monitor changes and updates in publications for
reprint and online resources.

Grading Policies:
The unit ensures that grading policies are accurate and consistent with current university and COET
policy. Grading policies are included in course syllabi,TigerTracks student enrollment system, and the
COET and university websites.

Advertising: The college advertising follows university policy. Department advertising is approved by
the dean. Program advertising is approved by department chairs.

Employment: All unit advertising for employment is initiated through the COET, approved by the
Affirmative Action Officer, and finally approved by the provost before submission to advertising
sources.

Unit Publications: All public relations and advertising such as brochures and posters, is initiated at the
department and unit level, and receives approval by the dean

   6a.4. How does the unit ensure that candidates have access to student services such as advising
and counseling?


The unit ensures that candidates have access to student services through a variety of means. Academic
advising at FHSU helps candidates develop educational programs of study that are compatible with their
career aspirations and contribute to the process of preparing for a life of change, challenge, and
individual fulfillment. At FHSU, academic advising is based on a system of shared responsibility
between candidate and advisor.

All candidates are assigned an advisor in their respective content areas upon admission to FHSU. COET
advisors are appointed to candidates when they declare pre-education or after being accepted into the
program (initial & advanced). The licensure officer advises and counsels candidates concerning
licensure procedures by the KSDE. She meets with candidates in the introductory course, Foundations
of Education, during the student teaching semester, and during the Transition-to-Teaching (T2T)
induction class.

In the advanced programs, the licensure officer also provides licensure consultation and information.
Specific program advisors are assigned to candidates after they are accepted into advanced programs
providing individualized advisement and counseling on candidate performance, career guidance,
program difficulty, and programs of study. Candidates seeking endorsement without degree completion
are advised by designated program faculty.

FHSU provides other candidate services across campus. The Kelly Center provides personal counseling
for all candidates. Personal Counseling Services provides the information and support to enhance
personal development, self-awareness, problem solving, and communication. These services can help
with managing stress, coping with transition, working through relationship difficulties, and changing
self-defeating behaviors. Crisis intervention is available on a 24-hour basis for individuals living on
                                                   Page 78


campus. Psychological testing and appropriate referrals to mental health providers are available.

    6a.5. Which members of the professional community participate in program design,
implementation, and evaluation? In what ways do they participate?
 The professional community has opportunities to participate and give feedback in program design,
 implementation, and evaluation. The primary areas that the professional community participate and
 provide feedback to the unit: a.) as members of the COPTSP governance council, b) as chairs/members
 of COPTSP ad hoc committees, c) as members on KSDE/NCATE accreditation committees, d) as
 members on the Clinical Practice Committee (CPC), and d) as active participants at the annual initial
 and advanced data retreats.

COPTSP:
The council receives input from Professional Education Unit (PEU) faculty, candidates, administrators,
and P-12 practitioners. Its bylaws ensures that all stakeholder groups that collaborate in planning,
delivering, and evaluating teacher preparation programs are coordinated and overseen by the Unit Head
and/or designated persons. The council membership includes 29 educators, candidates, school
practitioners, faculty, and administrators in other units of the institution. The function of the council is to
guide overall governance for the unit.

KSDE/NCATE Accreditation Committees:
All unit accreditation committees have professional community representatives. Professional community
representatives are included in all committee work on accreditation, unit improvement plan goals related
to their respective committee, and annual data retreats analyzing unit and candidate performance.

CPC:
The CPC is an advisory committee that reviews programs' clinical and field practices and make
suggestions of updates and changes in program design, implementation, and evaluation of clinical and
field practices. School partners serve on the CPC and bring current experience and expertise in school
districts to the committee.

   6a.6. How does the unit facilitate collaboration with other academic units involved in the
preparation of professional educators?
Collaboration with other academic units and the Graduate School begins with the COET dean and her
professional relationship with other college deans as she consults with them in matters pertaining to
initial and advanced education programs. The college deans are also members of the KSDE/NCATE
Steering Committee and provide input to the unit's accreditation process.

Membership of the PEU consists of all faculty, staff, and administrators within the four colleges who are
involved in initial and advanced preparation programs (Arts and Sciences, Business and Leadership,
Education and Technology, and Health and Life Sciences). Representatives from each academic unit
serve on unit accreditation committees and governance council/committees.

Collaboration is intensified in the Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional
Dispositions Committee. It meets regularly to review education issues and to develop a professional
learning community of initial and advanced program faculty. In addition, the Standard 1 Committee
meets separately as an Initial Programs Committee and an Advanced Programs Committee to focus on
issues of particular importance to each level.

Other academic units' faculty, staff, and administrators involved in initial and advanced preparation
programs also participate in the unit's annual data retreats. The data retreats draw all factions of the PEU
                                                  Page 79


together as a community of learners to analyze and evaluate data, gain deeper awareness of the
KSDE/NCATE continuous improvement process, examine candidate performance unit-wide, and
develop a unit improvement plan.

    6a.7. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to unit
leadership and authority may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access
many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]
                                            Standard 6 Exhibits

See Attachments panel below.


6b. Unit Budget

    6b.1. What is the budget available to support programs preparing candidates to meet
standards? How does the unit's budget compare to the budgets of other units with clinical
components on campus or similar units at other institutions?

FHSU is a public university, governed by KBOR operating under a budget model that incorporates a
state operating grant for the state supported portion of the budget and tuition accountability for the
tuition portion. The base budget (net of subsequent cuts due to state fiscal shortfalls) is repeated
annually, subject to refinements. Future increases come in the form of operating grants disbursed
through the Regents. Tuition accountability allows FHSU to determine its annual tuition increases, upon
approval by the Regents, and retain tuition generated. Merit increases for unclassified personnel salaries,
operating expenses and selected enhancements are established at the system level. Classified employees
receive their increases directly from the legislature, along with other employees of the state of Kansas
whose positions fall under the state employees codes. The annual budget request is forwarded
electronically to the Governor’s Administrative Office for review. Included in a legislative bill, it is
acted upon by the Kansas state legislature and signed by the Governor.

With the exception of minor adjustments, the operations element of the budget, called Other Operating
Expenses (OOE) is returned to budget units on an annual basis subject to reallocation by college deans.
The strategic planning process identifies areas needing faculty, staff, OOE adjustment, or new program
adjustments. Substantial items identified may be requested as program enhancements in the FHSU fiscal
year budget requests. Faculty merit increases criteria, along with other work practices are subject to
negotiations included in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).

COET resources are distributed internally in a manner comparable to other colleges. Table 6.1 reveals a
comparable pattern of expenditures among colleges, given the variable nature of faculty and
differentiated kinds of curriculum. Other sources of income made available to the unit include:

• Action plans that are funded by the president made available through the strategic planning process,

• Legislative support for improved classrooms and technology,

• KSDE support of Teachers for Tomorrow and T2T,

• Graduate School Research Grants, and

• Faculty development funding through the office of the provost.
                                                  Page 80


    6b.2. How adequately does the budget support all programs for the preparation of educators?
What changes to the budget over the past few years have affected the quality of the programs
offered?

There is a definite financial impact on higher education due to the financial status of Kansas. However,
the COET has not cut budgets that support programs for the preparation of educators. The COET has
had significant growth at both the initial and advanced program levels and unit budgets have been able
to support this growth. To date, the university's strategic planning initiatives have enabled the university
to absorb any financial impact evidenced by reduced state funding, and has maintained COET budgets.

Support for Candidate Visitations:

The Office of Professional Services provides adequate travel resources for the supervision of interns,
student teachers, and T2T candidates. Assignment of unit faculty for supervision is coordinated with
appropriate departments. Travel and associated practicum and internship expenses for advanced level
programs are absorbed by the Advanced Education Programs Department (AEP).

Faculty Development: Faculty development resources follow individual and program needs. Those
resources may include travel or other items identified as appropriate for faculty development purposes at
the department and/or program levels. Independent faculty development resources are available to
faculty at the department, COET, virtual college, and university levels through divisional budgets.

International faculty development funds are also available for faculty development. The provost
administers this support. In addition, COET faculty have a history of successful grant writing efforts that
support professional development, as well as endowment funds that may enhance resources.

Faculty development funds have maintained adequate resources for faculty development even though
budget reductions have occurred. The university provided $9, 582 in support of faculty professional
development, and the unit/departments provided $40,418 in professional development support. This
support was spread over all COET faculty members (32), and averages $1,263 per faculty member
support. This figure does not include grant supported faculty development.

Operating Budgets: No COET operating budgets have been reduced.

Positions: No classified or unclassified faculty and staff positions have been eliminated due to state
finance cuts.

Affect of Budget Changes: Budget changes over the past two years have had a positive impact on
programs for the preparation of education. The COET administration conducted a comprehensive budget
analysis of COET as a measure of efficiency, as well as quality control of programs. Budgets have
become more focused and targeted toward the specific improvement needs of preparation programs and
faculty development. In 2008-2009, the COET participated in a Kansas Board of Regents (KBOR)
program review which enabled the COET to experience an external analysis of efficiency.

    6b.3. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the unit's
budget may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits
electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]

6c. Personnel

   6c.1. What are the institution's and unit's workload policies? What is included in the workloads
                                                  Page 81


of faculty (e.g., hours of teaching, advising of candidates, supervising student teachers, work in P-
12 schools, independent study, research, administrative duties, and dissertation advisement)?
 The three components of faculty member workloads are instruction, scholarly activity, and service, with
 a “weighting” of 60%/20%/20% committed to each component, respectively. Workloads may be
 negotiated with department chairs per the MOA. The workload components for unit faculty members
 encompass professional duties and responsibilities necessary to their varied roles as a faculty member at
 FHSU.

The instructional component of a faculty member’s responsibilities may include both traditional and
electronic learning environments. Non-classroom teaching activities are included in the instructional
component (e.g., development of new courses or new instructional materials). Advising, supervising,
mentoring, and assessment of teaching and learning activities are also considered a part of instructional
activity.

The scholarly activities component at FHSU is defined as original, innovative intellectual contributions
in the form of research, practice, creative activity, or performance. FHSU recognizes and values the
diversity of types of scholarship, including discovery, pedagogy, integration, engagement, and
application according to the Boyer scholarship model. Scholarly activities must be intended and
reasonably expected to lead to the production of scholarly works. Scholarly works must be
communicated with and validated by peers beyond the FHSU campus community. The means of
communication as well as the comparative value of types of scholarly activity and work are to be
determined by each department. These determinations will reflect what is commonly accepted in the
discipline.

The service component is divided into three categories: service to the faculty member’s profession,
service to FHSU, and service to the community. Service to the profession includes, but is not limited to,
state, regional, or national offices held in professional organizations, organizing a professional workshop
or meeting, and other related activities. Service to FHSU includes, but is not limited to, committee
assignments (chair or member), offices held (elective or appointed), involvement in campus activities,
part-time administrative assignments, sponsoring or advising a student organization, and contributions to
recruitment or retention of candidates. This service includes activities in support of the department, the
college, and the University. Service to the community, as a part of the evaluation process, should be
related to one's professional expertise.

   6c.2. What are the faculty workloads for teaching and the supervision of clinical practice?


The MOA negotiated by FHSU, KBOR, and KSDE, with the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) representing the faculty, states that the full-time faculty instructional workload will
include twenty-four (24) credit hours of scheduled courses in any one academic year. For twelve-month
faculty, an additional six (6) credit hours comprise a full instruction workload in the summer session.
Department chairs can balance a faculty member’s schedule if the faculty member teaches fewer than
twelve (12) credit hours (or equivalent workload) in one semester with more than twelve (12) credit
hours (or equivalent workload) in another semester. Departments may delineate variations, with faculty
input, to the “hourly” workload, depending on the type of credit offered (e. g. lab assignments, private
instruction.) Modified instructional assignments are available to faculty members through Track I and
Track II reassigned time policies.

Clinical supervision is included in faculty instructional workloads and may be conducted both virtually
and on-site. The workload may include supervision of student teaching candidates, off-campus classes,
mediated courses including video, ITV, or on-line courses. Student teacher load of 4-5 teachers is equal
                                                   Page 82


to 3 credit hours depending on other faculty load.

Advanced level assignments may include internship/practicum supervision. Reassigned time may be
requested, subject to approval by the department chair, dean of the college, and the provost.

    6c.3. To what extent do workloads and class size allow faculty to be engaged effectively in
teaching, scholarship, and service (including time for such responsibilities as advisement,
developing assessments, and online courses)?

The Annual Statement of Responsibility (ASR) is used by department chairs and faculty to develop a
balanced workload that enables faculty members to be effectively engaged in teaching, scholarship, and
service. Class sizes maintain reasonable enrollment caps that vary depending on the level of the class
(initial and advanced), and the mode of instruction. For example, an on campus class with one instructor
may be limited to 25 candidates, while the same class co-taught by two instructors and a graduate
teaching assistant might have 35-75 candidates. Online courses typically have a lower maximum
enrollment than the corresponding face-to-face class. For example, TEEL 202 Foundations of
Education, which typically has an on-campus enrollment of 45 to 75 candidates, is capped at 30 when
offered online.

Advising is a part of instruction, which typically constitutes sixty percent of the unit faculty’s workload
and is a strength of the unit’s faculty. Unit faculty advisor evaluations clearly indicate that advising is a
strength of the unit due to its highly individualized service to candidates.

The Graduate School supports faculty research and instruction through appointment of graduate teaching
assistants. Teaching assistants engage in a range of activities from research to classroom assistance.

The Center for Teaching Excellence and Learning Technologies (CTELT) provides unit faculty
opportunities to develop or improve online courses. CTELT also provides excellent, real-time support to
unit faculty to assist them in developing appropriate assessments for their online courses.

The Instructional Resource Center (IRC) assists in the professional development of unit candidates and
faculty, provides technology and teaching resources, and facilitates videoconferencing. The IRC also
supports a professional research library for faculty and candidates.

Faculty workloads and class sizes allow faculty to engage in teaching, scholarship and service.

   6c.4. How does the unit ensure that the use of part-time faculty contributes to the integrity,
coherence, and quality of the unit and its programs?

The unit’s goal is to hire full-time tenure track faculty whenever possible. However, when part-time
faculty are hired, they are chosen carefully for their experience and special expertise (education and
experience) to teach particular courses. Department chairs interview, hire, and train adjunct faculty.
Every request for a part-time faculty contract is accompanied by a faculty vita. Faculty vita become part
of their official file located in the office of the provost. All part-time faculty are formally evaluated each
year by candidates and department chairs before a request to rehire can be submitted.

All graduate faculty must have approval of the dean of the graduate school. The Graduate Faculty
Senate evaluates all faculty applying for graduate faculty status. Typically, they must possess the
terminal degree in their discipline. Part-time faculty may be requested to teach specific graduate courses
and serve on advisory committees upon recommendation of the appropriate department graduate
                                                   Page 83


committee and approval of the dean of the graduate school. Part-time faculty possesses an earned
terminal degree, school experience, or has expertise in the course(s) taught. When teaching at the
graduate level, credentials are reviewed to determine eligibility for graduate faculty status. Only full-
time, tenured or tenure-track faculty with terminal degrees are eligible to become members of the
Graduate Faculty. Members of Graduate Faculty serve as advisors.

   6c.5. What personnel provide support for the unit? How does the unit ensure that it has an
adequate number of support personnel?

Adequate personnel support the unit. At least one full-time classified employee and a senior
administrative assistant are provided to each academic department in the COET for clerical
responsibilities. Teacher Education (TE) and AEP each have a 1.5 Full Time Employee (FTE) assigned.
A full-time director is provided for the IRC.

Student assistant positions are allocated to the dean of COET by the Financial Assistance Office. Based
on need, the dean reallocates student assistant positions to each department and the Instructional
Resource Center (IRC). AEP has four student assistants, Teacher Education (TE) has five, and
Technology Studies (TECS) has four. The IRC has eight student assistants. Graduate Teaching
Assistants (GA), allocated by the graduate dean, assist graduate faculty in the performance of their
instructional and research duties. GTAs receive a monetary stipend and tuition waivers. All departments
in COET receive GA support. GAs do not have primary classroom responsibilities in the unit, but may
assist regular faculty with classroom instruction and management.

The unit data manager maintains the electronic database system with information on candidates’
demographics, field-based placements, and assessments at each decision point of the unit. The data
manager serves as the primary “go-to” person for faculty and administrators for data analysis.

The unit receives further support from the Graduate School, the Grants Office, Center for Teaching
Excellence and Learning Technologies (CTELT), Computing and Telecommunication Center, the Office
of International Affairs, and the Virtual College.

   6c.6. What financial support is available for professional development activities for faculty?

COET recognizes the need to financially support professional activities, such as conferences,
workshops, and meetings, which enhance the professional development of faculty members.
Professional development support is available at the department, unit, university, and graduate school
levels. Professional development activities are encouraged when appropriate to enhance the performance
of the employee and the expertise of the unit. Release time and/or reimbursement of related expenses
may be approved in accordance with institutional policies. Release time with pay may be granted in
meritorious cases when the project or activity undertaken by the individual is considered to be
appropriate to the individual's area of competence and is in the best interest of the individual and the
University.

Each department uses the ASR and the annual faculty merit evaluation as a means of providing feedback
to the individual so that he or she can maintain appropriate levels of performance. Faculty members also
have a personal responsibility to maintain or improve performance and are encouraged to participate in
professional development activities. The department head, after consultation with the dean of the
college, will consult with the individual about improvement activities. Continuing education and
development opportunities are considered mutually beneficial to the faculty and the University.
                                                 Page 84


All unit faculty are allocated professional development funds, which are available through the deans’
office as well as the Graduate School and the Provost office to assist with professional activities of
faculty. Special funds are also provided for competitive summer grants for special research projects that
specifically support teaching and learning excellence. Additionally, throughout the year there are
multiple “free” opportunities for training in computer applications campus-wide. CTELT also provides
funds to support faculty development of online and hybrid courses.

    6c.7. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to personnel
may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits
electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]

6d. Unit facilities

    6d.1. How adequate are unit--classrooms, faculty offices, library/media center, the technology
infrastructure, and school facilities--to support teaching and learning? [Describe facilities on the
main campus as well as the facilities at off-campus sites if they exist.]


The native limestone appearance of the FHSU campus is pleasing, well maintained, and provides state-
of-the-art access to current technologies in every classroom, office, library, tech center, and other
buildings on campus. The technologies include pervasive iPods, Smartphones, and pen-enabled
computers. The technology infrastructure was enhanced to embrace the new technology by offering and
installing high-speed wireless internet campus-wide.

Classrooms are freshly painted, many with new carpeting. The temperatures in each classroom are
maintained at a comfortable level conducive to learning. Students’ desks are spacious with at least one
chair per classroom modified for a handicapped student. University faculty enjoy the convenience of a
central computer console, LCD projector, drop-down screen, and numerous software programs. Most
classrooms are equipped with an Elmo as well.

Faculty work in brightly lit offices, complete with modern furniture, a desktop or laptop computer,
printer/scanner/fax machine, storage cabinets, and an office phone. The corridors and hallways leading
to the offices are well maintained, warm, and friendly. Candidates have areas to lounge in the hallways
or the IRC while waiting for a class or instructor. Bulletin boards are routinely changed by various
student organizations or department program staff.

Forsyth Library realized “digital native” and “digital immigrant” candidates study at FHSU. The staff
wanted to create a welcoming environment to welcome all kinds of candidates regardless of their
technological abilities so they introduced new concepts in learning spaces to the institution. The Library
moved to a central theme of integrating The Learning Commons (TLC) concept throughout the facility.
This integration grew from acknowledging that a new generation of candidates not only multitask but
can rapidly form learning groups and—just as rapidly—move on to other learning groups. Those
learners thrive in collaborative, technology-driven environments and those learners require excellent
information services and instruction. The IRC in the COET followed their example and created a similar
casual digitally enhanced learning area.

Local schools in Hays, Ellis, LaCrosse, and Victoria, as well as schools state-wide, support candidates.
Their facilities are well-maintained allowing pleasant and realistic field experiences and student
teaching. Area schools are advanced in the use of technology in their curriculum. Access to the Internet
is available at each school, allowing easy communication with unit faculty. The Hays School District
made portable computers and wireless technology available to all students at Hays High School with a
                                                  Page 85


one-to-one laptop initiative for all students.

    6d.2. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to unit facilities
may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits
electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]

6e. Unit resources including technology

     6e.1. How does the unit allocate resources across programs to ensure candidates meet standards
in their field of study?
 FHSU has long been recognized for its “high-tech/high-touch” vision. The underlying assumption of the
 vision is the integration of leading edge information technology with the humanizing aspects of personal
 attention to achieve the most productive learning environments available in higher education. Faculty
 are valued for their creative use of desktop, classroom and lab-supported technology in developing
 pedagogy that is student-centered, interactive, participatory, problem-solving, practical, engaging and
 team-oriented. The result is acquisition of information literacy and transferable computer skills that will
 serve candidates for the rest of their lives.

The logical “next-step” in this institutional vision was the creation of a wireless and mobile computing
environment whereby each faculty member and student can learn anywhere, anytime in the context of
increased interactivity, productivity, equity of access, and continuous pedagogical innovation and
improvement. Ultimately, this strategy resulted in a faculty-led effort to implement pedagogically sound
and student engaged laptop learning experiences that reflect the very best and most innovative aspects of
the institutional “high-tech/high touch” vision.

Beginning with the 2007 fall semester, all freshman on-campus students enrolled at FHSU are expected
to have available a mobile computing device in the form of a tablet, laptop or notebook computer for use
in university learning experiences of all types. Because of their versatility, enhanced functionality and
compatibility with classroom use, the university recommends, but does not require, the acquisition of
tablet computers. Some programs (e.g. graphic design) and individual instructors employ Apple
computers in their courses and/or curriculum.

Candidates expect to use their computing devices in class. Faculty expect candidates will have the
necessary computing devices for any and all learning experiences. When appropriate, faculty are
expected to integrate computing devices and other technologies into both traditional and virtual learning
environments.

   6e.2. What information technology resources support faculty and candidates? What evidence
shows that candidates and faculty use these resources?

The unit's informational technology infrastructure is sufficient and provides reliability, speed, and
confidentiality of connection in the delivery system. All faculty members, on and off campus, have
Virtual Private Network (VPN) access, providing a secure (encrypted) Internet connection to the FHSU
network. VPN is required for off-campus access of the Lotus Notes Client and the Student, Course, and
Transcript Systems (CICS), which contains candidates’ records, transcript records, advising information,
course catalog, and semester offerings for each course.

COET participates on the university Instructional Technology Policy Advisory Committee (ITPAC),
assisting in identifying academic technology needs and policies for the university, as well as those that
would impact the unit.
                                                  Page 86




The unit uses the Blackboard on-line course delivery system complimented by the availability of on-line
video streaming and virtual/on campus access to library research resources.

Candidates, faculty, and staff use the on-line TigerTracks management system for routine operations
such as registering for classes, checking grades, and advising. Online directories and other resources
provide instant access to important COET and university information.

The Instructional Resource Center (IRC) in the COET provides technical support to candidates and
faculty and manages the unit's website and web resources. In addition to the video conferencing center in
the IRC, there are video conferencing centers in the Teacher Education Department, Technology Studies
Department, and the Advanced Education Programs Department that are available to candidates and
faculty for on and off campus connectivity.

All unit faculty have access to technology training within the unit and outside of the unit. Technology
training is current to the needs of the unit faculty and candidates as technologies change and are updated.
For example, when the university updated the Blackboard course delivery system to Blackboard 9.0, all
faculty, including adjuncts, were trained in the new version so that transition to version 9.0 could remain
seamless.

    6e.3. What resources are available for the development and implementation of the unit's
assessment system?

The FHSU Quality Assurance System (FQAS) organizes the unit’s data collection process from the
classroom level to the unit level. It is complimented by the Systematic Technology Analysis and
Reporting System (STARS) electronic data analysis system of both initial and advanced data.

The FQAS is facilitated through the KSDE/NCATE Assessment Committee. The Chair of the
Assessment Committee organizes committee work to manage the flow of data through the unit's
accreditation committees, departments, and programs, as well as the appropriate approval processes. The
Assessment Committee is also supported by graduate assistant support to assist in analyzing data,
compiling charts and graphs, and organizing data retreat information.

The STARS electronic data collection system is supported by a full-time data analyst/webmaster. The
data analyst/webmaster manages all data collection and makes data accessible to the unit, departments,
programs, and committees. He is supported by student workers who assist with data entry.

   6e.4. What library and curricular resources exist at the institution? How does the unit ensure
they are sufficient and current?
Forsyth Library supports on and off-campus faculty, staff, and candidates by providing print and online
resources. The library collaborates with numerous academic research entities, providing more than
667,000 volumes and 470,000 audiovisual and microform resources. Forsyth also functions as a
government depository housing 1.6 million volumes in all formats. This is an increase of over 45,000
online titles since 2005. There is also a computer lab located on the main floor with 18 computers
(including two Mac’s) and monitors for instruction in the use of the library’s resources.

On-line resources consist of databases, journals, government documents, E-books, and electronic
reserves. In fact, Education Full Text, Educators Reference Complete, ERIC, and Sage Premier are
databases devoted extensively to education. The library can supply these resources via distance services,
inter-library loan, or a document delivery website. All candidates have virtual access to the library's
                                                  Page 87


research resources.

The library has a unique combined collection of children's literature books encompassing the Harsh
Collection and the library’s juvenile collection. In addition, the library has a large collection of fiction
and nonfiction material about Kansas and the American West, supported in part by the Elmer and Eartha
Pugh Trust Fund. Topics include railroads, the cattle industry, cowboys, Native Americans, and frontier
life. The William D. Pashchal World War II History Collection, donated by retired dentist William
Paschal, contains books, declassified government documents, maps, photographs, and other materials.
The library is also the repository for the books, papers, and periodicals of the Fort Hays Genealogy
Society. Currently, the Library is working with the Kansas Cosmosphere to digitize their Apollo 11
collection.

The Learning Commons (TLC), located in Forsyth Library, provides assistance to help candidates
become comfortable with new technology. TLC is a one-stop technology shop built on the peer model
allowing candidates to check out equipment such as laptops, digital cameras, LCD projectors, and smart
whiteboards, along with advice on the use of these products. Candidates are also invited to bring their
laptop or software problems to the TLC for assistance and troubleshooting. One-on-one training is
available on demand for all major programs and for more specific applications by appointment.
Candidates can also take advantage of printing and scanning services, as well as booking smart rooms,
which are scattered throughout the library. The smart rooms, equipped with large, laptop-ready
televisions, media players and comfortable furniture, are designed to facilitate technology-aided group
study, presentation practice, and media awareness. TLC takes its mandate to be a technological leader on
campus seriously, and maintains a regularly updated Facebook presence and Twitter feed in order to
spread technological news relevant to candidates.

    6e.5. How does the unit ensure the accessibility of resources to candidates, including candidates
in off-campus, distance learning, and alternate route programs, through electronic means?


The Virtual College (VC) is fully accredited by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools and serves over 5,800 students in any one semester. Delivery of
off-campus instruction is facilitated by the VC through the Blackboard course management system. The
VC also manages the Interactive Television (ITV) network, Internet, or other mediums of delivery
without cost to the units. The VC delivers distance-learning coursework through:

•Asynchronous delivery (anytime/any place) which includes CD-ROMs, DVDs, the Internet, videotapes,
iPods, Blackboard, Classroom 2.0, and guided study; and

•Synchronous delivery (same time/different locations) which includes face-to-face, ITV, and
videoconferencing techniques such as Marratech, Flashmeetings, Skype, Adobe Connect, Elluminate,
and ooVoo.

The CTC HelpDesk is the focal point for technical assistance, referral information, and access to FHSU
computing and telecommunication services. The HelpDesk provides assistance with using the
TigerTracks Web portal, accessing FHSU e-mail, gaining on-campus Internet and wireless access,
posting student Web pages, and performing many other technology-related tasks. Free scanning and use
of a Windows or Macintosh customer workstation are some of the other services available in the CTC
HelpDesk office.

Desktop-to Desktop video conference advising is accessible to candidates in both the virtual and non-
virtual learning environments. Initial programs and advanced programs maintain personalized, face-to-
                                                  Page 88


face contact with candidates through technology and/or in person.

   6e.6. (Optional Upload) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to unit
resources, including technology, may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to
access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-3) should be uploaded.]

Optional

   1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 6?

The unit provides exceptional resources to both faculty and candidates related to technology (e.g.
mediated classrooms, personal laptops, Instructional Resource Center, webcams, digital projectors, I-
pods, digital streaming, video conferencing).

The unit has the resources necessary to provide exceptional reliability, speed and confidentiality in
distance delivery of coursework.

   2. What research related to Standard 6 is being conducted by the unit or its faculty?

Adams, P., Legleiter, E., Davies, M., Seimears, M., Hrepic, Z., & Walizer, B. (2008). University
partnership to deliver statewide professional development. Science Scope, 31(6), 20-24.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:62
posted:3/5/2012
language:
pages:89