Rank I Program in Instructional Systems Design (Non-ISD,Non-UK Masters in ISD)

Transcription

1 Folio for: Rank I Program in Instructional Systems Design (Non-ISD,Non-UK Masters in ISD) Fall, 1999 Submitted by: Instructional System Design Program Department of Curriculum and Instruction University of Kentucky 349 Dickey Hall Lexington, KY Instructional Systems Design Rank I Folio (Non-ISD,Non-UK Masters in ISD)

2 Grade Level: P-12 Department of Curriculum and Instruction University of Kentucky 2

3 I. Conceptual Framework A. Unit Conceptual Framework The College of Education at the University of Kentucky has adopted the model of "Professional Educator as Reflective Decision Maker" as the conceptual framework for its professional education programs. Faculty members officially selected this organizing theme to guide the development, implementation, and assessment of College programs in November l 992. Professional education programs at the University of Kentucky are committed to preparing educators who will be successful in their respective roles. To be successful, these individuals must be prepared to face varied and complex challenges and make informed, thoughtful decisions in their classroom, school, and district settings throughout their careers. Such preparation does not stop with a baccalaureate degree. Continuous professional development is the hallmark of a vital teaching force and marks the transition from novice to expert teaching. Post-baccalaureate programs in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Kentucky are designed to develop professional expertise in teachers and related professionals. The characteristics of reflective decision making, on-going professional development and continuous assessment included in programs in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction are derived from concepts of reflective practice and cognitive apprenticeship as espoused by historical and contemporary leaders in education. From this perspective, learners construct meaning from their experiences in the environment through analyzing data to detect patterns, forming and testing hypotheses, and integrating new knowledge with previous understandings in a process of schema development that moves learners from novice to more expert understandings (Caine & Caine, 1994; Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Condon, Clyde, Kyle & Hovda, 1993; Vygotsky,1978). Such learning does not involve the same all-or-nothing mastery as remembering isolated facts; rather, in-depth understanding is more likely to develop when individuals direct sustained attention to a set of concepts, relationships and questions and are able to reflect on the meaning and significance of what they ve studied (Newmann, et al., 1995; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). We see this kind of purposeful learning as taking place in a sociocultural context that helps determine what knowledge is worth having, how to acquire it, and how to use it. Understanding theory, research and practice in teaching is framed in the context of the questions, procedures and debate characteristic of the field of education (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Resnick, 1987; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978). Meaningful professional development, then, involves not just mastering content and pedagogical strategies (though these are important aspects of expert practice), but understanding the nature and purpose of both, so 3

4 that educators are better able to recognize, reflect on and solve the problems they will encounter in their practice. This reflective practitioner model is inherent in the Experienced Teacher Standards adopted by the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board as well as in the emerging teacher and student standards from national boards and professional organizations, the Academic Expectations of the Kentucky Education Reform Act passed into regulation in 1994, and the standards established by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. In keeping with a constructivist, reflective practitioner model of professional development, graduate and post-baccalaureate programs in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction approach professionals as researchers of their own practice as well as critical analysts of other theory and research. Our focus is on providing an environment in which the reflective practitioner contemplates prior experiences, weighs successes and difficulties associated with these experiences, and considers strategies for extending successes and reducing difficulties. Our programs are designed to broaden the context of decision-making to include not only personal experience, but reflection on the larger body of theory and research available to educators. As such, our perspective on reflective decision-making, professional development and continuous assessment encourages individual open-mindedness, that is, the ability to actively challenge personal beliefs by continually seeking new information. This open-mindedness goes hand-in-hand with wholeheartedness and intellectual responsibility. Wholeheartedness is an absorbing enthusiasm for and dedication to one's work. Intellectual responsibility includes caring enough about the consequences of one's professional duties and actions to seek necessary information on which to base intelligent decisions. These characteristics support the actions which constitute reflective decision making. This model also presumes a collaborative relationship between graduate and postbaccalaureate students and university personnel in determining the professional development needs of individual students. This is a labor intensive process, requiring sustained time and effort on all sides so that all participants' work is guided by a commitment to continuous improvement based on reflection, evaluation, and on-going research (Swanson, 1995). B. Program's Conceptual Framework The Instructional Systems Design Program is a graduate program that prepares individuals in the design and development of instructional systems. Program graduates work in instructional design positions in job settings including: business, industry, education, health professions, government, military, and various training organizations. ISD also provides the instructional technology components to the secondary, elementary, and middle school programs at baccalaureate and Master s, Rank I and doctoral levels in the 4

5 College of Education. The various degree, rank, and endorsement program options described in detail below are a standards-based, integrated with advanced degree options and use continuous competency assessments, thus enhancing the student s marketability and range of professional options. Students in instructional design are decision-makers who proceed knowledgeably, thoughtfully, and systematically by applying foundational tenants of instructional design to training and instructional problems. Using needs assessments and on-going feedback and evaluation, instructional designers strategically plan and implement instruction using the range of technology now available in today s business, industrial, health care and educational contexts. As these contexts shape and are shaped by evolving technologies students need flexible professional preparation to meet the demands of changing skills and expertise. Students seeking advanced degrees or professional studies in ISD need intensive exposure to instructional design conceptual frameworks, research and practical applications. Faculty support and mentoring to insure successful attainment of professional goals are also program priorities. The integration of theory, research and standards-based practice are hallmarks of the instructional design program whether the student s goals are instructional design, research and development, or obtaining professional development and/or higher rank teacher certification. The program meets standards of the Kentucky Experienced Teacher Standards. Additionally, standards developed by the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (IBSTPI) for instructional designers core competencies are used to assess the content area preparation of advanced degree, rank and endorsement candidates. These program and content standards are shown in Appendix A. II. Program Experiences A. Students Rank I certification is offered as part of the doctoral program in ISD with specified elective courses in subject area education courses. The faculty of ISD strongly believe that incorporating the Rank I preparation within the doctoral program coursework and program experiences will provide the highest quality of professional preparation that will be recognized nationally. A planned program of 30 hours beyond the Master s level is required to obtain the Rank I; completion of the doctoral program is an option that extends beyond the Rank I mandates. Specificed planned program requirements for the this aspect of the program are an extension of the Department s commitment to continuous improvement based on reflection, evaluation, and on-going research. 5

6 Students entering the ISD Rank I (non ISD UK Masters) program must 1) hold a Master s degree, and 2) be accepted into the Graduate School at the University of Kentucky. Applicants seeking the Rank I option must hold a Kentucky Rank II teaching certificate or appropriate equivalent certification from another state. B. Courses in Instructional Design Following are course descriptions for the Instructional Systems Design Program. EDC543 VIDEO FOR MULTIMEDIA AND DISTANCE LEARNING (3) A variety of video applications for distance education and multimedia are discussed. Classroom exercises and projects develop basic video skills and production experienced needed for distance education course delivery and development of multimedia projects. Topics include instructional video research, video equipment, terminology and systems and message design issues. EDC 544 USE AND INTEGRATION OF EDUCATIONAL MEDIA (3) Students use a range of traditional, interactive, and emerging technological interventions in analog and digital formats. Students gain skill in the operation, production, and integration of basic media such as video, graphics, videodisc, and CD-ROM in a variety of instructional settings(training, exploring, and learning, on-line databases etc.) Students demonstrate skills via the composition and production of several media documents using available tools and resources. EDC 547 INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTING I (3) Students use instructional computing applications and understand the roles and uses of computers in instruction. Students select and use instructional computing hardware and software appropriate to instructional goals and settings. Students use electronic networks for instructional purposes. Students use electronic networks for instructional purposes. Students demonstrate skill using basic productivity software through structured assignments and collaborative projects. EDC 548 INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTING II (3) Students develop skill in advanced aspects of the operation and use of the range of instructional technologies from desktop to distributed computing environments. Students use operating systems, learn network administration, do technology planning, and work with basic authoring tools. Skill is demonstrated through a series of projects including development of a technology plan for a specific work setting and authorship of a prototype program. Prereq: EDC 547 or consent of the instructor. EDC 607 INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN I (3) 6

7 Introduction to the instructional design process from needs assessment and goal definition through evaluation. Each student will design prototype instructional materials based on an instructional design model and/or procedures. The course will also introduce students to the field of instructional design and technology. EDC 608 INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN II (3) Critical analysis of instructional design models and their theoretical foundations including the impact of various models and perspectives on the practice and the products of instructional design. Prereq: EDC 607 or consent of instructor. EDC 609 INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA RESEARCH AND DESIGN (3) Students integrate theory and practice in the design of interactive multimedia for instruction. Students use a wide range of interactive technology and critique existing interactive programs. Research findings in the interdisciplinary field of human-computer interaction and interactive learning concepts are applied to interface design problems. Students design, develop and evaluate a prototype interactive program. Prereq: EDC 544, EDC 547 or consent of instructor. EDC 611 AUTHORING APPLICATIONS FOR TECHNOLOGY-BASED INSTRUCTION (3) Focuses on individual and collaborative authoring applications for technology based instructional materials. Topics include linear and non-linear information structures, instructional message design, compositional issues related to audience focus, information density, language control, and organization, and prototype production with industry standard authoring software. Prereq: EDC 547 and EDC 607 or consent of the instructor. EDC 612 INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATIONS (3) Provides an in-depth survey of the field of instructional design and technology. Topics covered include the history of instructional design and technology, critical issues, current trends and future prospects for the field, instructional development, research, certification, and professional development. EDC 710 ADVANCED TOPICS IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN (3) An identification and analysis of current theories and programs of research instructional design. Students will develop the skills necessary to conduct and write a scholarly literature review and identify potential areas and questions needing further study. Prereq: EDC 608, EDP 610, EDC 612, or consent of the instructor. EDC 750 INTERNSHIP IN INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS DESIGN (3) Students will apply their knowledge of instructional systems design in a real-life setting. The work setting will be selected based on the professional goals of each student and student work will be supervised and reviewed by the internship coordinator. May be repeated to a maximum of nine credits. 7

8 EDC 755 INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS DESIGN RESEARCH COLLOQUIUM (1) Students and faculty will discuss current research and related issues in instructional systems design. May be repeated to a maximum of two credits. Prereq or concur: EDC 547 and EDC 608. EDC 768 RESIDENCE CREDIT FOR THE MASTER'S DEGREE (1-6) May be repeated to a maximum of 12 hours. EDC 769 RESIDENCE CREDIT FOR THE DOCTOR'S DEGREE (1-12) May be repeated indefinitely. EDC 781 INDEPENDENT STUDY IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION (1-3) An independent study course for graduate students who have completed at least half of the program course requirements in clinical and college teaching, curriculum and instruction, early childhood education, elementary education, reading or secondary education. May be repeated to a maximum of nine credits. Prereq: Consent of the Director of Graduate Studies. EDC 791 RESEARCH PROBLEMS IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION (1-3) A research problems course for graduate students who have completed at least half of the program course requirements in clinical and college teaching, curriculum and instruction, early childhood education, elementary education, reading or secondary education. May be repeated to a maximum of nine credits. Prereq: Consent of the Director of Graduate Studies. C. Program Planning The program planning sheet for the Rank I (Non ISD UK Master s) in Instructional Systems Design is shown in Appendix B. The coursework plan includes 15 hours required coursework in Education (including EDC , EDC , choice of 609 or 611 in instructional design) 6 hours of required coursework outside the program (EDP 610 Theories of Learning and EPE620 Topics and Methods of Evaluation) and 9 hrs of Rank I electives approved byt the student s advisor. A minimum of 30 graduate semester hours of graduate work must be completed, all graduate work must be in courses numbered 500 or higher and an overall GPA of 3.0 or better must be achieved. D. Legislative Initiatives The goals and content of legislative initiatives are addressed in specific coursework in the ISD progam and practice is reflected through portfolio assessment at the designated midpoint and final assessment points. Specifically, SB186 (Literacy Program) is incorporated into the content and assessment of EDC547 and EDC607. HB447 (State Agency Children) and HB519 (Exceptional Children) are included in the content and asssessment of 8

9 EDC547 and EDC607 where the development of needs assessments and individualized instruction are significant components of the knowledge base. The spirit and goals of HB330 (Safety Education) are addressed in EDC544,EDC547, EDC548 with topics such as appropriate computer operation and equipment safety and ergonomic issues. Additionally parental involvement and school internet policy topics incorporate aspects of safety associated with internet access (as issues in that arena continually evolve). E. KERA Initiative: Kentucky Learner Goals and Academic Expectations, Kentucky Program of Studies The goals and content of Kentucky Learner Goals and the Kentucky Program of Studies provide the basis for outcomes which can be used as students develop expertise in the core content of instructional systems design which is the development and design of instruction to achieve specific performance-based results (see the IBSPTI core content standards in Appendix A). In this advanced certficate Non-ISD/UK RankI program, initial evidence of integration Kentucky Learner Goals and Academic Expectation is represented in either portfolio work as part of previous Rank II work or other equivalents documented during the Entry assessment at admission to the program (see Table 1) Integration and sustained ability to incorporate the Kentucky Learner Goals into instructional design will be demonstrated via coursework and portfolio exhibitions assessed at the mid-pointin addition, the Kentucky Learner Goals are important to the planning of instruction (ETS# 3), assessing learning results (ETS#6), and evaluating and revising instruction and curriculum (ETS#7). F. NCATE Themes Conceptual Framework: The unit conceptual framework, Professional Educator as Reflective Decision Maker combines with ISD program s conceptual framework tp prepare students who are decisionmakers who proceed knowledgeably, thoughtfully, and systematically by applying foundational tenants of instructional design to training and instructional problems. The framework is the basis for program development, continuous assessment, coursework and program revision and thus its demonstration is inherently evident in all aspects of the Rank Programs in Instructional Systems Design. Diversity: The core content standards, reflected in the Instructional Systems design coursework emphasizes the design, implementation, assessment and evaluation of individualized instruction that is based upon tailored needs assessments and contextual analysis. Attention to individual leanring styles, the learning culture and the unique aspects of the instructional context are all aspects of instructional design that address diversity concerns. Evidence of attention to diversity will occur via coursework and portfolio assessment. 9

10 Intellectual Vitality: A disposition toward intellectual vitality is presumed of advance degree and professional preparation candidates such as those in the advanced degree Rank programs in Instructional Systems Design. The content of coursework which reflects the latest knowledge, research and practice in the field of Instructional Systems Design, individual and group projects and participation in EDC 755 Instructional Systems Design Research Colloquium are among the many program resources available to students which stimulate and nurture intellectual vitality. Technology: The emphasis on the use of instructional technologies and environments to design, implement, assess and evaluate instructional design makes the technology theme one that resonates through virtually all coursework in Instructional Systems Design. In addition the topics of the research colloquium focus on technology and specific coursework projects routinely involve technology. Experienced Teacher Standard #10 is used as an entry assessment and as an evaluation of performance for students completing the progam. Professional Community: The development of professional community is not only an Experience Teacher Standard (#8, Collaborates with Colleagues/Parents/Other) but integral to the Intellectual Vitality theme. Thus, in addition to coursework which requires collaborative work, and demonstration of this theme via the portfolio or capstone project, the ISD program also offers the monthly Instructional Systems Design Research Colloquium which provides professional conversation and contact. The colloquium is especially important as a vehicle for professional community since the program predominantly has students who are parttime and who may not experience the same sense of intellectual community as full-time graduates students or colleagues who work in the same schools or instructional contexts. Evaluation: Through continuous assessment, the faculty of the Instructional Systems Design program routinely evaluate, align, and revise coursework content, offerings, and other program components such as the colloquium. The entire NCATE, Folio development process has been framed by the need for continual evaluation of program components. Data for program evaluation is shown in the continuous assessment plan below (G). Program evaluation activities are also reflected in program meeting minutes and of course, the actual indicator of evaluation is ultimately the resultant program changes occur over time. Performance Assessment: This folio is designed to articulate student performance assessments which are linked to core content and experienced teacher standards for the express purpose of providing an outcomes oriented, performance assessment of the Instructional Systems Design advanced degree Rank programs. Thus the theme of performance assessment is so integral to the 10

11 document a brief discussion of specific examples is redundant. The performance standards (Appendix A) and the performance assessment rubrics (Appendix E) are exemplars of the integration of the performance assessment theme in the program. G. Continuous Assessment Plan This section provides an overview of how the ISD program continuously monitors and assesses each candidate's mastery of content throughout his or her program and during follow-up. Continuous assessment occurs through numerous activities throughout the students' programs. These products and activities are completed in a variety of formats and may involve individual and group work, performance-based tasks, activities documented via portfolio entries, and traditionally-assessed tasks such as pencil and paper tests and written reports. Additionally, student s work provides a basis for continuous assessment activities to occur at the program level. Students in the certification programs are assessed a minimum of three times during their programs by representatives of their respective program faculties. The three assessments include (a) the entry assessment upon admission to the ISD Rank I (Non ISD UK Master s) Program, (b) a midpoint assessment after the completion of 15 credit hours which include four basic ISD courses EDC547, EDC548, EDC607, EDC608, and (c) a final retention assessment, a portfolio submission to a panel which occurs at the conclusion of four graduate technology electives and two required courses, EDC608 and EDC548. Table 1 shows these assessment points. Assessments include, but are not limited to, (a) basic skills assessments (as evidenced upon entry and throughout the program); (b) content related assessments (as evidenced by course grades and transfer of content knowledge during class projects, portfolio entries, on-demand tasks): (c) personal skills assessment (as evidenced through interviews and interactions with program faculty, peers. and youth in schools); (d) portfolio documents (which should reflect key knowledge and skills attained and collected throughout the program); and self-assessment completed by the students at exit and during follow up surveys. Table 1 indicates the continuous assessment activities throughout the program: Table 1 - Instructional Systems Coursework and Assessment Activities Course Kentucky Experienced Teacher Standards Assessment Product/Activity Continuous Assessment Points in Time* X Entrance Interview, Declaration of Student as rank change applicant, Portfolio Requirements, Entry level assessment 11

12 Completion of 12 Graduate hours including: EDC 544, EDC 547, EDC 607, EDC 608 of skills based on KY ETS #9 - technology competencies I, II,II,V, VI, VII, Examinations, Assignments, Portfolio Evaluation Meeting X Completion of 9 hours of additional Graduate Requirements (EDC609 or EDC611 or EDC 612) and EDP 610 and EPE620 II, III, V,VI,VII, VIII, IX X Completion of 9 Graduate hours of Rank I electives I,II,III,V,VI, VIII Examinations, Assignments, Portfolio Evaluation Meeting X *Assessment Point 1 - Entrance Point 2 - Mid-Point Retention Decision Point 3 - Final Retention Decision 1. Technology Content Standards and Alternative Methods of Demonstration Students applying for RankI (Non ISD-UK Masters) Program Certification in Instructional Systems Design will use portfolio assessment and coursework completion as demonstators of the core competencies as outlined in the IBSTPI standards. Reviews of portfolios and monitoring of required coursework occurs at the assessment check-points shown in Table 1. Methods for demonstrating course competencies are outlined in Table 2 below. Table 2 indicates technology content standards and methods of demonstrating the standards available to students. Table 2 - Technology Content Standards and Methods of Demonstration IBSTPI Professional Standards for Instructional Designers 1. Determine projects that are appropriate for instructional design Coursework EDC 547,548,607, 609, 611,612 Portfolio Assessment X 2. Conduct a needs assessment EDC 607,609,611 12

13 3. Assess the relevant characteristics of learners/trainees EDC 544,607,608 EDP Analyze the characteristics of a setting EDC X 544,547,548, , Perform job, task and/or content analysis EDC 607,609,611 X 6. Write statements of performance objectives EDC 544,547, Develop the performance measurements EDC 608,609,611 EPE Sequence the performance objectives EDC 547,607,609, Specify the instructional strategies EDC 544,607,608, 610, Design the instructional materials EDC 544,547,607, 609, Evaluate the instruction training EDC 607,609,611 EPE Design the instructional management system EDC 548,607,609, Plan and monitor instructional design projects EDC 607,609,611 X X X X X X X X X 14. Communicate effectively in visual, oral, and written form EDC 544,607,608, 609,611 EDP 610, EPE 620 X In addition to promoting the achievement of core competencies, program experiences and coursework are specifically designed to promote the achievement of skilled classroom practice as outlined in Kentucky s Experienced Teacher Standards. Table 3 is the matrix that indicates the relationship of coursework required in the Rank I (Non ISD-UK Masters) program in Instructional Systems Design and Kentucky Experienced Teacher Standards (ETS). A rubric for assessing progress toward achieving theses standards is shown in Appendix C. 13

14 Table 3 - Teacher Standards and Instructional Systems Coursework Grade Level: P-12 Course Kentucky Experienced Teacher Standards Entrance EDC 547, EDC 548, EDC 607, EDC 608 Development of Assessment Plan with reference to standards I, II,II,IV,V, VI Graduate Requirements (9 credit hours) choice of EDC609, EDC611, or EDC 612 and EDP 610, EPE 620 Graduate Electives (9 credit hours) III,IV,VII,VIII IX To be determined depending upon electives 2. Continuous Assessment Planning and Review Procedures for Students The Instructional Systems Design program faculty reviews section I in the matrix shown in Table 3 for each entering applicant. As part of the admission process, the program faculty receives a plan from the certification advisor in this matrix format for demonstration of the technology content standard submitted by each applicant to the Instructional Systems Design Program. In the plan, prepared with advisement of the chair of the program faculty, the applicant indicates for each content standard the method of demonstration--coursework or portfolio entry. For any content standard that the applicant cannot demonstrate upon admission, the applicant must indicate how that standard will be met before matriculation. Acceptance of the demonstration of content standard plan, including pre-matriculation activities, for each student by the Instructional System Design Program Faculty is a prerequisite for admission. At each assessment point (shown in Table 1) the ISD program faculty will review and evaluate the documentation submitted by the student in accordance with the assessment plan in the form of a professional portfolio. The portfolio will be organized by standard and show how each item is a demonstration of a particular standard through the reflective statements and overviews,developed by the student, that accompany the item. Rubrics for assessing the student s portfolio documentation are shown in Appendix C. If the portfolio demonstates the required competencies students will continue or complete the program. Weaknesses evident in portflio exhibitions will be addressed through revisions to the student s continuous assessment matrix plan (Appendix D) by the program certification 14

15 advisor in collaboration with the ISD student and improvement must be evident in the exit portfolio. 3. Continuous Assessment and Program Review Procedures Reflective decision making is carried through to instructional systems design program evaluation. In order to graduate competent classroom teachers skilled in instructional design competencies, we use the following sources and procedures to obtain evaluation data on which to base program revisions. A. Data source: Student Portfolios Personnel responsible: ISD Program Faculty Student portfolio entries are designed to reflect program competencies embedded in each course and field placement. At three points (entry, mid, and exit), student portfolios will be reviewed by program faculty across students to determine patterns of content strengths and weaknesses within ISD. Based on these reviews, the the program certification advisorfrom ISD specialty area will collect data across the year and report these findings to the entire ISD program faculty. Where content weaknesses are found, faculty members will develop a work plan (see Appendix D for a sample work plan) including time lines to remediate the weaknesses and support one another in making the revisions. The certification advisor of the ISD program faculty will oversee this work plan. The data will be presented to the faculty of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the annual fall department retreat. B. Data Source: Entry Level Data Summary Personnel responsible: ISD Program Certification Advisor and the Director of Graduate Studies The certification advisor in ISD will complete the Entry Level Data Summary form (Appendix D), consisting of (a) cumulative GPA, (b) ISD area GPA and record of course work; (c) work and professional employment experiences (c) GRE scores and (d) letters of recommendation. This Entry Level Data Summary form will be attached to the student s continuous assessment plan completed upon admission to the program. This information will provide baseline data that will be compared to student data throughout the program (e.g. portfolio entries, success in field-based placements) for the purpose of identifying entry level abilities that predict success in the program. When entry level requirements are found not to correlate with success in the program, entry level requirements will be reviewed at the annual fall faculty retreat. Where entry level requirements are found to correlate with success in the program, those requirements will be considered more strongly at entry. C. Data Source: Course Evaluations 15

16 Personnel Responsible: Department Chair Each semester, the Department Chair will review COE formal evaluations of instructional design. Based on these evaluations, when patterns of weakness are found, the chair will assist the course instructor to use the program s work plan and program revision procedures to address the weaknesses or consider changing instructional design assignments. D. Data Source: Portfolio Submissions Personnel Responsible: ISD Program Certification Advisor At the mid-point and final retention students will present their portfolios documenting projects, on-demand tasks and other pertinent materials to a panel and be evaluated in terms of their acquisition of Kentucky's Experienced Teacher Standards and the IBPSTI content standards (see Appendix E). Program weaknesses evident from portflio exhibitions will be addressed through the development of a work plan by program certification advisor in collaboration with the ISD faculty (see Appendix F). E. Data Source: Follow-up Surveys with Graduates Personnel Responsible. ISD Program Certification Advisor One year after graduation, a survey will be sent to all ISD Rank I (Non ISD-UK Master s) Program graduates to determine their self-rated instructional design competence as indexed by the IBSTPI standards and the Kentucky New/ExperiencedTeacher Standards. The survey will also ask for suggestions for improvement in the program. Appendix Gshows a sample of the current follow-up questionnaire. When the surveys are completed, the program certificaton advisor in ISD (or representative) will compile and analyze the data, review the data with ISD program faculty members, and make recommendations for programmatic revisions. These recommendations will then be presented to the ISD program faculty. Based on program faculty discussion, appropriate program revisions will be made as indicated. 4. Continuous Assessment Plan Summary As this continuous assessment section of the folio describes, evaluation of our students will serve as the basis for certification program revisions. As we see patterns of weakness across our students, we will assume that it is a programmatic problem and revise the ISD program as needed. Program improvements will be documented through program meeting minutes and revisions in course syllabi and requirements. In addition, we hope to obtain data from instructional design professionals and from the opinions of our students regarding their preparation for instructional design in educational contexts. While we formally collect student data at three points (entry, midway, exit), the data collection and analysis for program revision 16

17 will be ongoing, using data collected at the three formal student checkpoints but also using data that can be obtained at other points in time and from additional sources. Advances in instructional design and requirements from the Kentucky Department of Education, NCATE, and our respective professional organizations (IBSTPI) consistently require us review ISD Rank II Program requirements and reassess. Developing a continuous assessment plan in 1999 has provided us the opportunity to add new evaluation sources and rethink our continuous assessment procedures. As we revise our Rank I (Non ISD-UK Master s) in Instructional Systems Design Program, we also will revise our assessment plan by targeting new data sources and designing new procedures for collecting data as well as discontinuing data collection that is not helpful to program revision. 17

18 IV. Program Faculty Program faculty are listed in Table 4 by (a) name, (b) the course(s) that each teach in the Instructional Systems Design program, (c) their highest degree, (d) their areas of specialization, and (e) their responsibility to the Instructional Systems Design program and the University of Kentucky. More than one faculty member may be assigned to the same course based on (a) multiple sections of the course, (b) distance learning commitments, or (c) course responsibilities (i.e., thesis). Faculty/Courses taught that are part of the Rank II Program Table 4 - Instructional Systems Program Faculty Highest Degree Areas of Specialization Responsibility to ISD Program and Relationship to UK Gary Anglin Ed.D. Instructional Design Program Coordinator, Fulltime University, Full-time Program, Program Faculty Joan Mazur Ph.D. Education Technology & Multimedia Development and Research Full-time University, Fulltime Program, Program Faculty Jack McElroy Ed.D. Education Technology, apprentice program Douglas C. Smith Ph. D. Education Technology & Multimedia Authoring Full-time University, Fulltime Program, Program Faculty Full-time University, Fulltime Program, Program Faculty 18

19 APPENDIX A A. Technology Content Standards B. Kentucky Experienced Teacher Standards (ETS) A. International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (IBSTPI)Core Compentencie Standards for Instructional Designers 1. Determine projects that are appropriate for instructional design 2. Conduct a needs assessment 3. Assesses the relevant characteristics of learners/trainees 4. Analyze the characteristics of a setting 5. Perform job, task and/or content analysis 6. Write statements of performance objectives 7. Develop the performance measurements 8. Sequence the performance objectives 9. Specify the instructional strategies 10. Design the instructional materials 11. Evaluate the instruction training 12. Design the instructional management system 13. Plan and monitor instructional design projects 14. Communicate effectively in visual, oral, and written form 19

20 15. Interact effectively with other people 16. Promote the use of instructional design 20

21 B. Kentucky s Experience Teacher Standards Standard 1: Demonstrates Professional Leadership Standard 2: Demonstrates Knowledge of Content Standard 3: Standard 4: Standard 5: Standard 6: Standard 7: Standard 8: Standard 9: Designs/Plans Instruction Creates/Maintains Learning Climate Implements/Manages Instruction Assesses and Communicates Learning Results Reflects/Evaluates Teaching/Learning Collaborates with Colleagues/Parents/Others Engages in Professional Development Standard 10: Uses technology to support instruction, professional growth, communication and collaboration and problem solving 21

22 APPENDIX B Instructional Systems Design Rank II Program Program Planning Sheet for Grades P-12 Rank I (Non ISD-UK Master s Degree)Verification Form 22

23 APPENDIX C Entry Level Core Technology Skills Assessment (Based on ETC #9 Technology Compentency) Completed Upon Entry to Program Kentucky Experience Teacher Technology Standard The teacher uses technology to suppport instruction; access and manipulate data; enhance professional growth and productivity; communicate and collaborate with colleagues, parents, and the community; and to conduct research/solve problems. Scoring guide: 3= Meets standard, high competency 2= Meets some components of standard, improvement required 1= Does not meet standard, instruction and practice required Performance Indicator Score 1. Operates a multimedia computer and peripherals to install and use a variety of software. 2. Uses terminology related to computers and technology appropriately in written and verbal communication. 3.Demonstrates knowledge of the use of technology in business, industry, and society. 4. Demonstrates basic knowledge of computer/peripheral parts and attends to simple connections and installations. 5. Creates multimedia presentations using scanners, digital cameras, and video cameras. 6. Uses the computer to do word processing, create databases and spreadsheets, access electronic mail and the Internet, make presentations, and use other emerging technologies to enhance professional productivity and support instruction. 7. Uses computers and other technologies such as interactive instruction, audio/video conferencing, and other distance learning applications to enhance professional productivity and support instruction. 8 Requests and uses appropriate assistive and adaptive devices for students with special needs 9. Designs lessons that include technology and human issues to address diverse students needs and different learning styles. 23

24 10. Practices equitable, and legal use of computers and technology in both professional and personal activities. 11. Facilitates the lifelong learning of self and others through the use of technology. 12. Explores, uses, and evaluates technology resources: software, applications, and related documentation. 13. Applies research-based instructional practices that use computers and other technology. 14. Designs lessons that integrate computers and other technology to create effective groupings to meet the needs of diverse learners. 15.Uses technology to support multiple assessments of student learning. 16.Designs lessons that ask students to practice the equitable, ethical, and legal use of technology. WORK PLAN Signature of Student Signature of Advisor Date Copy of KY Experienced Teacher Standards Obtained (Student Initial) 24

25 APPENDIX D Entry Level Data Summary (Completed by DGS/ISD Certfication Advisor) Name Student ID GPA GRE Scores ISD coursework and GPA this area Work/Professional Experiences Letters of Recommendation (attached) 25

26 APPENDIX E Rubrics for Assessing Student Portfolios: 1) Core Competencies IBSTPI Standards and KY New Teacher Standards 2) Experienced Teacher Standards (Kentucky) 1) Core Competencies IBSTPI Standards and KY New Teacher Standards IBSTPI Core Competencies Rubric indicators 3 - Exceptional, 2 - Satisfactory - 1 Marginal, 0- Unsatisfactory 1. Determine projects that are appropriate for instructional design 3 - Determination of appropriateness reflects sound principles of instructional design. A thorough rationale is included and highly innovative in the selection of instructional design approaches. 2 - Determination of appropriateness reflects sound principles of instructional design as it is practiced in its many forms and approaches, a rationale for the use of instructional design is included and is complete 1 - Determination of appropriateness is somewhat vague and does not clearly indicate sound principles of instructional design as it is practiced in its many forms and approaches. A rationale for the use of instructional design is included but is not thorough. 0 - Determination of appropriateness is not acceptable, either not included or is inconsistent with sound princples of instructional design 2. Conduct a needs 3 - Needs assessment is highly rigorous, uses 26

27 assessment multiple, relevant data sources and is completely thorough in collecting information from all constituencies involved in instruction including learners with special needs such as those with physical disabilities. 2- Needs assessment is thorough, uses multiple, relevant data sources and includes learners with special needs such as those with physical disabilities. 1 - Needs assessment procedures are outlined but does not include uses multiple data sources or exludes learners with special needs such as those with physical disabilities. 0 - Needs assessment is inadequate, data sources are limited or inappropriate and the assessment does not include appropriate constituencies or those with special needs. 3. Assesses the relevant characteristics of learners/trainees 3 - Assessment of learner/trainee characteristics highly rigorous, use multiple, relevant data sources and is completely thorough in collecting information from all constituencies involved in instruction including learners with special needs such as those with physical disabilities. 2- Assessment of learner/trainee characteristics uses multiple, relevant data sources and includes learners with special needs such as those with physical disabilities. 1 - Assessment of learner/trainee characteristics isoutlined but does not include uses multiple data sources or exludes learners with special needs such as those with physical disabilities. 0 - Assessment of learner/trainee characteristics is inadequate, data sources are limited or inappropriate and the assessment does not include appropriate constituencies or those with special 27

28 needs. 4. Analyze the characteristics of a setting 3 - Analysis of setting characteristics is highly rigorous, uses multiple, relevant data sources and is completely thorough in collecting information regarding all aspects of the setting involved in instruction. Attention to how characteristics of the setting affect learners with special needs is evident. 2- Analysis of setting characteristics uses multiple, relevant data sources and includes affects upon learners with special needs such as those with physical disabilities. 1 - Analysis of setting characteristics is outlined but does not include uses multiple data sources or exludes learners with special needs such as those with physical disabilities. 0 - Analysis of setting characteristics inadequate, data sources are limited or inappropriate or the analysis is not included. The assessment does not include appropriate constituencies or those with special needs. 5. Perform job, task and/or content analysis 3 - Task, job or content analysis is highly rigorous, specifies clearly defined measurable components and is thorough in detailing all aspects of the job/tasks/or content that will be the subject of instruction. Analysis of how learners with special needs perform the job or task is included. 2- Task, job or content analysis is specifies clearly defined measurable components and details most aspects of the job/tasks/or content that will be the subject of instruction. Analysis of how learners with special needs perform the job or task is included. 1 - Task, job or content analysis is specifies some aspects of the job/tasks/or content that will be the subject of instruction. Measurable components are 28

29 vague. Analysis of how learners with special needs perform the job or task lacking or vague. 0 - Task, job or content analysis is not included or so vague as to be useful for developing performance objectives or outcomes for instruction.analysis of how learners with special needs perform the job or task is not included. 6. Write statements of performance objectives 3 - Performance objectives and outcomes are highly rigorous, conditions, outcomes and measures are clearly specified and correlate directly to task/job analysis. Performance objectives are modified appropriately for students with special needs. 2- Performance objectives and outcomes, conditions, and measures are clearly specified and correlate directly to task/job analysis. Performance objectives are modified appropriately for students with special needs. 1 - Performance objectives and outcomes, conditions, and measures are specified, but correlation to task/job analysis is unclear. Performance objectives are lacking or not modified appropriately for students with special needs. 0 - Performance objectives and outcomes, conditions, and measures are not included. 7. Develop the performance measurements 3 - Performance measure are developed using a variety of indicators including such strategies as written evaluations, on-demand performance tasks, peer evaluations and/or other appropriate or creative measures. Performance measures are modified appropriately for students with special needs. Measures can be triangulated. 2- Performance measure are developed using appropriate indicators but a wide variety of strategies is not evident. Performance measures 29

30 are modified appropriately for students with special needs. 1 - Performance measure are developed using inappropriate indicators and/or innappropriate or limited strategies. Performance measures are modified appropriately for students with special needs. 0 - Performance measures are not included. 8. Sequence the performance objectives 3 - Performance objectives are sequenced to insure that complete instructional experiences occur. Motivation is enhanced by the sequencing. Sequencing of instruction reflects task/job analysis, setting and learner characteristics and abilities. Sequencing is modified appropriately for students with special needs. 2- Performance objectives are sequenced to insure that complete instructional experiences occur. Sequencing of instruction is approrpiate to task/job analysis, setting and learner characteristics and abilities. Sequencing is modified appropriately for students with special needs. 1 - Performance objectives are not sequenced appropriately to ensure that instructional experiences occur. Sequencing of instruction is inapprorpiate to task/job analysis, setting and learner characteristics and abilities. Sequencing is not modified appropriately for students with special needs. 0 - Performance objectives are not sequenced. 9. Specify the instructional strategies 3 - Instructional strategies are specified and reflect a wide range of cognitive, social learning, collaborative and/or other innovative types of instruction. Strategies are included that optimize the instructional experiences of students with special needs. 30

31 2- Instructional strategies are specified and are appropriate but do not necessarily use a wide range of media or modes of of instruction. Strategies are included that optimize the instructional experiences of students with special needs. 1 - Instructional strategies are specified but are somewhat innappropriate. Strategies are not included that address instruction for students with special needs. 0 - Instructional strategies are not specified. 10. Design the instructional materials 3 - The design of instructional materials is exceptional. Multiple media or types of instruction are used and the materials reflect sound information or media design principles. When appropriate interactive technologies are used to enhance instruction. Materials are modified to optimize instruction for students with special needs. 2 - The design of instructional materials is highly appropriate and uses multipe media or types of instruction. are used and The materials reflect sound information or media design principles. Materials are modified to for students with special needs. 1 - The design of instructional materials is limited by the use of the particular media or types of instruction. The materials do not reflect sound information or media design principles. Materials are not modified to for students with special needs. 0- Instructional materials are not included or are of such poor quality as to be useless for instruction. 11. Evaluate the instruction training 3 - Evaluation of instruction is rigorous and modifications to the instructional design are made. Knowledge of a wide variety of evaluation techniques, user-testing and rapid prototyping and 31