Web Print

---

2002 NCATE Annual Report (Part C of the AACTE Annual Report) [Printable Version]

Section 1 - Institutional Information:

NCATE ID:	10219
AACTE SID:	773
Institution:	Columbus State University
Unit:	College of Education
Next Accreditation Visit:	S05
Last Accreditation Visit
Deadline to Submit Final Version of Part C:	12/02/2002

Section 2 - Individual Contact Information

Unit Head Name:	Dr. Thomas Harrison
Unit Head Email:	harrison_thomas@colstate.edu
Unit Head Phone:	(706) 568-2212
Unit Head Fax:	(706) 569-3134
Institution Unit Phone:	(706) 568-2045
1st NCATE Coordinator:	Dr. Deborah Gober
1st Coordinator Title:	NCATE Coordinator
1st Coordinator Phone:	(706) 568-2045
1st Coordinator Fax:	(706) 569-3134
1st Coordinator Email:	gober_deborah@colstate.edu
2nd NCATE Coordinator:
2nd Coordinator Title:
2nd Coordinator Phone:
2nd Coordinator Fax:
2nd Coordinator Email:
CEO:	Dr. Frank D. Brown
CEO Phone:	(706) 568-2211
CEO Fax:	(706) 568-2123
CEO Email:	brown_frank@colstate.edu

Is the information above accurate?

Yes - Skip to NCATE Standards Section

Corrected Unit Head:
Corrected Title of Unit Head
Corrected Unit Head Email:
Corrected Unit Head Phone:
Corrected Unit Head Fax:
Corrected Institution Unit Phone:
Corrected 1st NCATE Coordinator:
Corrected 1st Coordinator Title
Corrected 1st Coordinator Phone:
Corrected 1st Coordinator Fax:
Corrected 1st Coordinator Email:
Corrected 2nd NCATE Coordinator:
Corrected 2nd Coordinator Title:
Corrected 2nd Coordinator Phone:
Corrected 2nd Coordinator Fax:
Corrected 2nd Coordinator Email:
Corrected CEO Full Name:
Corrected CEO Phone:
Corrected CEO Fax:
Corrected CEO Email:

Section 3 - NCATE Standards Categories & Weaknesses Section





Section A. Conceptual Framework(s)

The conceptual framework(s) establishes the shared vision for a unit's efforts in preparing educators to work effectively in P-12 schools. It provides direction for programs, courses, teaching, candidate performance, scholarship, service, and unit accountability. The conceptual framework(s) is knowledge-based, articulated, shared, coherent, consistent with the unit and/or institutional mission, and continuously evaluated.

Please indicate evaluations of and changes made to the unit's conceptual framework (if any) during this year:

In AY 2001-2002, the CSU College of Education Conceptual Framework continued to serve as a basis for decision-making. The reorganization of the COE committee structure included the formation of seven committees to work with the six NCATE Standards and the Conceptual Framework. During the academic year, the committees examined the NCATE standards, collected data to show evidence of meeting the standards, and made recommendations for the COE. The work done by these committees further enhanced the COE?s efforts to ?guide individuals as they become professionals.? The committees were provided an opportunity to share their work in a series of forums for teacher preparation faculty. The process of sharing and discussing ideas ensured that the shared vision and common beliefs of the faculty were reflected in the work of the committees. In May 2002, a COE faculty survey was administered to determine faculty perceptions about the conceptual framework and other issues related to teacher preparation. A similar survey was administered in February-March 2000. Results from the survey showed that there continues to be strong support for and agreement with the tenets set forth in the conceptual framework. However, a number of faculty members have suggested that the framework needs to be simplified. The Conceptual Framework Committee will address this concern in AY 2002-2003 as faculty meet together to discuss and refine the COE Conceptual Framework. Other activities in the College of Education followed up on AY 2000-2001 developments. · CSU implemented the performance assessment plan, the Model of Appropriate Practice (MAP), for all undergraduate programs in the College of Education. The implementation of the MAP has served to better align undergraduate programs with the conceptual framework and has led to improvements in professional courses, technology utilization, and field experiences. For example, one improvement was the development of the Web-Folio, an electronic template which teacher candidates use to document their learning throughout the teacher education program. The Web-Folio is aligned with the MAP and the COE Conceptual Framework. · The emphasis on the infusion of technology continued in AY 2001-2002. A number of faculty received grants to help with integrating technology in COE programs and courses. These faculty members participated in a variety of technology-training workshops that included beginning and advanced WebCT training, InTech and post-secondary InTech training, and CD/DVD authoring. As a result of this training, faculty continued to enhance professional courses and COE programs through the infusion of technology. In these ongoing efforts throughout AY 2001-2002, programs were continually being evaluated and refined to better reflect the conceptual framework. These efforts sparked improvements across the board in candidate content knowledge, technology utilization/infusion, field experiences, and the development of partnerships with schools serving as sites for clinical experiences. Items noted in the unit's response to a weakness reported by the 1998 BOE are equally applicable in this discussion. Please refer to them.

Conceptual framework weaknesses cited as a result of the last NCATE review:

The conceptual framework has not been integrated across the unit's programs.

The unit continued its efforts to both clarify and integrate its conceptual framework. Activities conducted in AY 2001-2002 that reflect clarification and integration of the conceptual framework are these: · use of a handbook for adjunct faculty including orientation to the conceptual framework · utilization of junior/senior teacher candidates (?The Pyramid Team?) to introduce students in their initial professional course to the conceptual framework and INTASC Principles · faculty forums that address NCATE-related topics, ways to better use the conceptual framework, and so forth · emphasis on conceptual framework (INTASC) during implementation and evaluation of the performance assessment plan (MAP) for undergraduate teacher preparation programs · distribution of the conceptual framework brochure to cooperating teachers, new faculty, students and other members of the professional community · use of a bulletin board in a high-traffic area emphasizing components of the Conceptual Framework · use of a performance assessment handbook for faculty and students which includes a synopsis of the conceptual framework and correlation of the performance assessment plan with INTASC Standards. Items noted in the unit's response to evaluations of and changes made to the unit's conceptual framework (if any) during this year are equally applicable in this discussion. Please refer to them.

Section B. Candidate Performance

Standard 1. Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that cnadidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

Please describe the unit's plans for and progress in meeting this standard. (Refer to the NCATE 2000 Unit Transition Plan for information regarding the levels at which units should address Standards 1 and 2 during the first year of NCATE 2000 implementation)

In AY 2001-2002, the commitment of the College of Education to preparing candidates who know and demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn, was shown in a number of ways. The Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions Committee provided leadership in this area. For each COE program, the committee collected data related to Standard 1 to evaluate current efforts in this area. One result of this work was the compilation of an array of possible sources of evidence showing that candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Plans for AY 2002-2003 include meeting with program coordinators to discuss and identify common sources of evidence that can be collected for all programs. Another result of the committee?s work was the discovery of a number of innovative approaches to preparing teacher candidates and other professionals. Faculty will have opportunities to share and discuss their ideas and strategies in the ongoing faculty forums. The Model of Appropriate Practice (MAP), a systematic performance assessment plan for all undergraduate programs in the College of Education, was implemented in AY 2001-2002. The MAP is used to instruct, mentor, and assess teacher candidates as they acquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. The MAP will be evaluated and refined in AY 2002-2003. Continued efforts will be made to collaborate more closely with teacher preparation faculty in the College of Science and the College of Arts and Letters as we prepare teacher candidates and assess their content knowledge. Another development in AY 2001-2002 related to Standard 1, was the establishment of an ad hoc subcommittee to address the preparation of teacher candidates in the area of dispositions. This subcommittee convened in Spring 2002 and is working to create an instrument for documenting and assessing professional dispositions. Plans for AY 2002-2003 include infusing the dispositions instrument into the existing performance assessment plan (MAP). The instrument will enable the COE to better instruct, mentor, and assess candidates in the area of dispositions.

Areas of Improvement related to Standard 1 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:

None.

Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
Standard 2. Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs.

Please describe the unit's plans for and progress in meeting this standard. (Refer to the NCATE 2000 Unit Transition Plan for information regarding the levels at which units should address Standards 1 and 2 during the first year of NCATE 2000 implementation)

Planning for a more systematic approach to candidate/program/unit assessment continued in AY 2001-2002. The Assessment System and Unit Evaluation Committee provided leadership in this area. Efforts during AY 2001-2002 focused on the development of a student database. Members of the committee first identified variables for a database that would be housed in the COE, be applicable for both graduate and undergraduate students, and record information typically required for most reporting bodies. A draft was created and agreed upon by committee members. The Assessment Committee then met with a programmer from Computer Information and Networking Services (CINS) to discuss how best to organize the database. The database will contain information supplied to the COE through the Office of Admissions (e.g., test scores). Additional information will be gathered and added to the database by the COE. This will include information about classroom technology, certifications and endorsements, and teaching certificates. Faculty previewed a draft of the database organization and began collecting intake information from graduates. It is anticipated that the database will be operationalized in Fall 2003. In addition to the development of a database, the Model of Appropriate Practice (MAP) was implemented in AY 2001-2002. This instrument was used to collect data on undergraduate teacher education candidates and COE programs. Program coordinators used the data to assess their programs and establish goals for AY 2002-2003. The MAP will be evaluated and refined in AY 2002-2003. Another assessment tool that is correlated with the MAP, the Web-Folio, was developed and piloted in the educational foundation courses. The Web-Folio is an electronic template which teacher candidates use to document their learning throughout the teacher education program. The Web-Folio will provide additional data to help in assessing COE candidates and programs. Planning for a systematic approach to candidate/program/unit assessment will continue in AY 2002-2003 with an emphasis on developing a more systematic assessment plan for graduate programs and for the unit. The Assessment Committee will oversee this process with assistance from the COE standing committees.

Areas of Improvement related to Standard 2 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:

None.

Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
Section C. Unit capacity

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 personnel develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn.
Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 3 that occurred in your unit this year:

In AY 2001-2002, the COE implemented the Model of Appropriate Practice (MAP). This performance assessment plan provides guidelines for instructing, mentoring, and assessing teacher candidates during their field experiences. Data gathered from the implementation of the MAP helped teacher candidates, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers to identify candidates? strengths and areas needing improvement. The data also provided documentation showing areas of strength and weakness in COE courses and programs. For example, data revealed that the COE is strong in building opportunities for constructive reflection by teacher candidates in initial preparation programs. On the other hand, the data revealed that there is a lack of evidence showing that COE programs prepare teacher candidates who are able to produce gains in student learning. Program coordinators will need to devise innovative ways to collect evidence from field experiences and clinical practice to demonstrate that teacher candidates have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to help all students learn. During AY 2002-2003, the COE will refine the MAP and make improvements in courses, field experiences, and programs to address identified areas of weakness. Efforts to refine the procedures for placing teacher candidates in P-12 schools for field experiences and clinical practice continued in AY 2001-2002. The Office of COE Services and Field Experiences (SAFE) worked with Partner Schools to place 98.57% of teacher candidates in Partner School settings. Mentor teachers from Partner Schools assisted in the placement of teacher candidates in clinical practice. To further facilitate the process of placing candidates in P-12 schools, a total of 53 Building Coordinators have been identified in the Partner Schools. The Building Coordinators serve as liaisons between the COE and teachers in P-12 classrooms and assist the College of Education in designing, delivering, and evaluating field experiences. A handbook for Building Coordinators was created and distributed to provide specific information regarding each field experience. The partnerships between the COE and area schools were further enhanced by the Partners Improving Education (PIE) grants. The SAFE Office monitored and evaluated the status of these grants and worked closely with project coordinators. Project evaluations from the coordinators indicated that the projects have had a positive impact on the performance of teacher candidates and P-12 students.

Areas of Improvement related to Standard 3 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:

None.

Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
Standard 4. Diversity
The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and experiences for candidates to acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. These experiences include working with diverse higher education and school faculty, diverse candidates, and diverse students in P-12 schools.

Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 4 that occurred in your unit this year:

Diversity has been an on-going concern in the COE. The Diversity Committee is leading efforts to expand thinking about diversity. As part of the efforts to understand diversity issues and their impact on the COE, the Diversity Committee sponsored a workshop on diversity in Spring 2002. Following the workshop, Dr. Murray Bradfield, the workshop leader, proposed a plan for assessing the diversity climate in the COE. This plan is to be implemented in AY 2002-2003. Another change being proposed to address diversity issues in the COE is the development of a required course in the teacher education program that will encompass the many aspects of diversity, as well as provide teacher candidates with teaching strategies and skills that will enable them to help all students learn. Two faculty members in the COE will develop the course in Fall 2002. The course will incorporate face-to-face contact, as well as online and other technological delivery methods. Other continuing efforts support the ongoing emphasis on diversity issues in the COE. Diversity is a key component in the Model of Appropriate Practice (MAP) that was implemented in AY 2001-2002. Teacher candidates must demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions (as described in MAP) that will enable them to work effectively with diverse students and help all students learn. Initial data from the implementation of the MAP indicate that COE programs need to devise ways to collect evidence that teacher candidates are able to produce gains in all students? learning. Plans to address this area will be discussed in faculty meetings and forums in AY 2002-2003. The Office of COE Services and Field Experiences (SAFE) continues to ensure suitable placements of candidates in sites where they may acquire and refine the skills and knowledge necessary to help all students learn. An extensive database is maintained in the SAFE Office to ensure that teacher candidates have experiences in diverse settings. There has also been a major thrust to increase the emphasis on diversity in the coursework and field experiences of alternative teacher preparation programs. The COE continues to recruit and retain a diverse pool of education candidates at both initial and advanced levels. Among full-time undergraduates, 78% percent (603 out of 778) are white, 19% percent (148 out of 778) are African-American, and the remainder represent other minorities. Among full-time graduate students, 70% percent (262 out of 373) are white, 27% percent (99 out of 373) are African American, and the remainder represent other minorities. Among initial program completers, 22% percent (29 out of 129) were minority. In advanced programs, 27 percent (28 out of 104) of the recipients of M.Ed. or Ed.S. degrees were minority, primarily African Americans. Unit faculty are increasingly diverse. Please see the discussion in response to the weakness cited in 1998 for details and commentary (following).

Areas of Improvement related to Standard 4 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:

The college has not been successful in recruiting and retaining a diverse faculty.

Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).

Since the 1998 continuing accreditation visit, the COE has hired and retained several minority faculty members. Three of the 29 full-time faculty (10% percent) in the unit are minority. Four of the 31 part-time faculty (13% percent) are minority persons. One minority faculty member was promoted from the rank of assistant professor to associate professor in AY 2001-2002. The COE is currently working with University Admissions, Minority Affairs, International and Multicultural Affairs, and other individuals and organizations to achieve a more diverse faculty and student body.

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.

Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 5 that occurred in your unit this year:

In AY 2001-2002, the Faculty Qualifications, Performance and Development Committee surveyed all permanent and part-time faculty in order to obtain benchmark data of faculty qualifications, performance, and development. The data indicated that COE faculty are well-qualified. Tenure-track faculty with full-time teaching responsibilities hold earned doctorates and display rich P-12 experience. Many unit faculty provide leadership to state, regional, and national professional organizations. Faculty development in AY 2001-2002 again emphasized the use and infusion of technology. Expenditures on technology training for faculty were considerable. As a result, a number of faculty were able to participate in a variety of technology-training workshops and enhanced their teaching with technology. A number of faculty also received faculty development funds from the university to pursue research or course development in their fields. The Faculty Qualifications, Performance and Development Committee sponsored a Faculty Development Showcase in which faculty shared their research or course enhancements with the COE. The West Georgia Partner Schools Coalition continues to support collaboration between CSU and four school systems. The ongoing collaboration ensures that teacher candidates work with well-qualified faculty in P-12 school settings. Evaluations from coordinators of the Partners Improving Education (PIE) grants indicate that the projects have had a positive impact on the performance of teacher candidates and P-12 students. Collaboration between the unit and the education community is greatly enhanced by other COE enterprises: the Educational Technology Training Center (ETTC), the Columbus Regional Mathematics Collaborative (CRMC), the Coca Cola Space Science Center, and the Child Care Resource and Referral Agency of West Central Georgia and Columbus (CCRRC). These groups continue to enhance the unit?s ability to affect educational practice in West Central Georgia by providing a variety of resources, training, and professional development activities for surrounding communities.

Areas of Improvement related to Standard 5 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:

None.

Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
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.

Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 6 that occurred in your unit this year:

In AY 2001-2002, the Unit Governance and Resources Committee conducted an extensive study and evaluation of the unit and its resources. Results of the evaluation indicate the following: · The COE effectively coordinates all programs at Columbus State University (CSU) that are designed to prepare education professionals through its support of the activities of several constituent groups including Program Advisory Committees for each academic program and the Educator Preparation Program Council. University-wide Educator Preparation Faculty Meetings are held once each semester to provide opportunities for CSU faculty and school personnel involved in the preparation of future teachers to participate in the decision-making process. · The Partner Schools Plan has established partnerships between the COE and school districts, allowing school district personnel to become actively involved in decision-making in the teacher preparation program. · The Office of COE Services and Field Experiences (SAFE) provides management and leadership in advising, placements for field experiences and student teaching, evaluating transcripts for post-baccalaureate candidates, certification, career placement and counseling, test information and workshops, HOPE applications, admission to teacher education, and assessment of the performance of student teachers and graduates during their first two years of employment. · The budget for the COE is considered adequate to support high-quality and exemplary programs and projects to ensure that candidates meet local, state, and national standards. · Faculty and staff of the unit have been successful in securing external funding. Grant funding has been especially evident in support of the Educational Technology Training Center, the Child Care Resource and Referral Center of West Georgia, the Columbus Regional Mathematics Collaborative, and Georgia P-16 initiative. · The Educational Technology Training Center (ETTC) at CSU provides technology professional development opportunities for the public and private P-16 educational community in the university?s service area. The training provided by the ETTC empowers pre-service and in-service teachers, faculty of colleges and universities, school administrators and support personnel to integrate modern technologies into the educational environment. · Curricular resources to support basic and advanced programs are located in the Schwob Library, the Columbus Regional Mathematics Collaborative, the Educational Technology Training Center, the Child Care Resource and Referral Center, the Science Education Outreach Center, faculty offices, and several other campus locations. These resources are a strength for some programs and a weakness for others. A careful study of curricular resources for all programs will be undertaken in AY 2002-2003 to provide adequate curricular resources for all programs. · A vast array of computer resources is available to both COE faculty and students, including 1800 campus computer (110 of which directly support COE), 24 computer labs (four of which directly support COE), and six model classrooms. The Unit Governance and Resources Committee will continue to monitor and evaluate the unit and its resources to ensure that 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.

Areas of Improvement related to Standard 6 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:

The College of Education does not have a written policy covering the governance and facilitation of teacher education programs offered outside of the college.

Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).

As described in a previous Annual Report (1998-1999), Part C, the institution and unit now have a suitable written policy regarding the unit?s authority over programs nominally housed outside the College of Education (art, music, and theatre).

Enter the Name of the Person Filling Out the Report: Deborah Gober