· web viewkey assessment # 3 (facilities plan assignment) - faculty will introduce the key...

Exhibit 2.4.g.24 Instructional Technology MS (School Library Media Specialist) Comprehensive Data Analysis Report (DAR) Summary 2011-2013

AY11:

1. Have the change(s) in response to data that you documented last year had the desired effect on your program? Please provide specifics referencing prior changes that you submitted in AY 2009-2010.

The following actions (noted in bold print) were taken in response to the data analysis documented in last year’s YASU report. The effects of each respective change to the program are noted in italics.

Key Assessment # 2 (Collection Development Policy) - Faculty will revise the assessment tool to incorporate representation for digital tools. Faculty will devote more face-to-face instructional time towards the explanation and review of the assessment rubric.

A revised key assessment #2 is being piloted in a fall 2011 section of ISTC 615, Collection Development.

Key Assessment # 3 (Facilities Plan Assignment) - Faculty will introduce the key assessment and rubric closer to the beginning of the respective course semester. Candidates will be encouraged to work on the assessment in an incremental fashion throughout class. Time will be allocated within the course sequence/timeline for review and possible remediation of the assessment rubric. Given the heavy workload in the ISTC 651 course (where this assessment is administered), faculty will examine the program’s course sequence and determine if some content for the ISTC 651 course can be relocated to other courses in the program, like ISTC 653.

The rubric was introduced to candidates closer to the beginning of the respective course semester; faculty report that students expressed a better understanding of the assessment. All course syllabi and key assessments are being revised/updated to reflect the 2010 AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Library Media Specialist. The revision process began in June 2011, and will conclude in January 2012. Some course content may be relocated from ISTC 651 to ISTC653 as part of the revision process.

Key Assessment # 4 (Practicum Evaluation ) - Faculty will encourage the use of Wiki’s and other web 2.0 tools among field-based Library Media Specialists as informative tools about the Standards for the 21 st Century Learners.

Wiki’s are being used as a collaborative tool among local school-based Library Media Specialists. Baltimore County has implemented a new school library media curriculum that is aligned with the Common Core curriculum and the AASL Standards for the 21st Century Learners. BCPS has initiated a Wiki for Library Media Specialists to provide on-going feedback regarding the new curriculum.

Key Assessment # 5 (Unit of Instruction) - More in-depth pre-assessment tools will be used in the ISTC 667 course to assess candidates pedagogical backgrounds. Based on the pre-assessment data, instructors will provide instruction in needed areas (e.g. collaboration)

Instructors utilized several methods of pre-assessment and formative assessment in the summer 2011, ISTC 667 course. Students created biographical pages in Blackboard providing background data and completed CAT’s (classroom assessment techniques) activities. Based on the additional data, instructors were able to model and provide more guidance in the area of collaboration. Students scored well on the key assessment document in collaborative areas.

Key Assessment # 6 – (Information Literacy Model) - Faculty will devote time and resources towards explanation of the Maryland State Curriculum and towards modeling alignment of the assignment elements with the Maryland State Curriculum. Candidates will be provided with models of the Information Literacy Model Assessment.

A more detailed explanation of the Maryland State Curriculum and modeling the alignment of assignment elements with the Maryland State Curriculum led to a better understanding of the key assessment elements related to the Maryland State Curriculum. Seventeen out of eighteen students scored in the acceptable levels or higher in the curriculum alignment area of key assessment #6.

Key Assessment #8 - MARC Records/LoC Field Trip - Candidates will be provided with more modeling, instruction and guided practice in determining the elements for the MARC 245 field. Faculty will examine this assessment for potential revision.

Faculty decided in the summer of 2011 that the Key Assessment #8 - MARC Records/LoC Field Trip s no longer an assessment reflective of being a key assessment for the ISTC 653, Organization of Knowledge course. A new key assessment #8 is being developed in the fall, 2011 semester with an intended Pilot Implementation in the spring 2012 semester.

Dispositions Assessment - Faculty will continue the discussion on methods or instruments for measuring candidate disposition progression.

Faculty decided that since a majority of the candidates enter the program scoring at the target level on the existing dispositions document, that an additional document was needed to better access candidates’ progression in this area. A Dispositions 2 – Interpersonal Skills document was developed and used to assess candidates’ dispositions at the end point of the program. The new document provides more descriptive dispositions data.

.

2. What significant findings emerge from your examination of these data?

Key Assessment Implications

1. Digital Portfolio Candidates are performing primarily at the target level on the reflections content.

A few candidates scored at the acceptable level regarding the navigation of their portfolios.

2. Collection and Development Policy

While the data indicated the candidates performed primarily at the target level on the assessment, the assessment instrument needs to be updated to

reflect the use of digital resources.

3. Facilities Plan Assignment

Candidates in the on-campus section scored lower in criteria related to educational specifications and accommodations. The instructor for that class indicated that the students worked in small groups to complete the assessment, resulting in similar scores for all members of the group.

4. Practicum Evaluation

Assessment data and feedback from school-based Library Media Specialists indicates that the candidates are performing on average at the target levels, and that the candidates are prepared for their practicum experiences.

5. Unit of Instruction: Modified ISD/Pebbles Project

Candidates performed on average at the acceptable to target levels on all the criteria.

Despite increased emphasis on the collaborative role of the Library Media Specialist in instruction; several candidates did not adequately address collaborative instruction in their instructional design models. Another area of concern is APA formatting and style, approximately ¼ of the students made APA style errors in the formatting of their assessment documents.

6. Information Literacy Model

Data reveals that there was significant differentiation among the scores on the assessment. Candidates performed at the acceptable mastery level on all criteria except Audience Comprehension and Analysis.

7. Literature Project: Text Set

This is a newly revised assessment. Data indicates that the candidates performed well on the assessment. Instructors have recommended clarification of some of the assessment terminology.

8. MARC Assignment/LOC FieldTrip

Data indicates that the candidates performed at the high-acceptable or target levels on the assessment.

School library media faculty determined that while important, the MARC assignment is no longer representative of a key assessment for the School Library Media Program, particularly for the course in which it is administered, ISTC 653, The Organization of Knowledge.

Given the incorporation of RDA into bibliographic description, and the proliferation of meta-data, it was recommended that a new key assessment be developed representing a broader scope in the organization of knowledge in school library media centers.

Dispositions Assessment

Given that graduate candidates in the School Library Media Program, particularly those who have significant teaching experience, score very high on the initial dispositions assessment, it was decided in 2010 to have an additional instrument to assess candidate progression of dispositions at the exit point in the program. The new assessment was administered at the end point in the program. Data at the entry and the mid-point of the program indicates that the candidates are at the target level on the initial disposition assessment document. Data at the end point, using the new and more descriptive assessment document reveals that candidates are scoring at the high acceptable to target levels in all the dispositions criteria. This data indicates that the candidates have the dispositions to be effective School Library Media Specialists.

3. How have you involved faculty in your identification of the implications of these data?

School library media formally faculty members formally meet semi-annually to discuss, disaggregate and analyze the data.

4. What specific actions will you take in response to these data? (REQUIRED response to NCATE AFI)

Note – In addition to the recommendations listed below, all key assessments, program syllabi and curriculum are being revised to reflection the 2010 AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Library Media Specialists.

Key Assessment Actions

1. Digital Portfolio Candidates will be encouraged to utilize web 2.0 tools in developing their portfolios. Candidates will also be encouraged to secure a proofreader to check through all navigation points in the portfolio


The assessment instrument has been changed and piloted in the fall 2011 semester to reflect the collection and evaluation of digital resources. Formative assessment and revision of the instrument will continue through 2012.


It has been suggested that more differentiation occur in the scoring of group work.


No changes are recommended based on the analysis of data.


In the most recent implementation of the Unit of Instruction assessment, candidates were presented with 4 model projects that exemplified the collaborative role of the school Library Media Specialist. Continued emphasis will be placed on the collaborative role of the school Library Media Specialist; additional model projects will be presented, shared, and discussed.

Instruction will be focused on the appropriate use of APA style.


The scores on the Audience Comprehension and Analysis category appear to be an anomaly in comparison to data for the same assessment over the past three years.

Given the relatively small sample of data for this report, more data is needed from future administrations of the assessment before making recommendations.


During a summer 2011 school library media faculty meeting to discuss the data, school library media faculty clarified the wording of the assessment document based on the recommendation of the instructors.

8. MARC Assignment/LOC FieldTrip

An assessment instrument is in the process of being developed. Formative assessment and revision of the instrument will continue through 2012 based on data findings from the administration of the instrument through 2012.

Dispositions Assessment

Based on the analysis of data, no changes are recommended to the dispositions assessments document.

AY 12:

1. Have the change(s) in response to data that you documented last year had the desired effect on your program? Please provide specifics referencing prior changes that you submitted in AY 2010-2011.

The following actions were taken in response to the data analysis documented in last year’s YASU report. The effects of each respective change to the program are noted in italics.

Key Assessment Actions1. Digital Portfolio(Assessment #1)

Candidates will be encouraged to utilize web 2.0 tools in developing their portfolios. Candidates will be encouraged to secure a proofreader to check through all navigation points in the portfolio

Candidates completing portfolios were provided with exemplary examples of

portfolios completed using web 2.0 tools, and were encouraged to secure a proofreader/navigation checker for their portfolio. Thirty-three of 35 (94%) five candidates earned portfolio navigation in the target area of their respective Digital Portfolio (assessment #1) indicating the proofreaders had a positive effect in regards to this issue.

2. Collection and Development Policy(Assessment #2)

The assessment instrument has been changed and piloted in the fall 2011 semester to reflection the collection and evaluation of digital resources. Formative assessment and revision of the instrument will continue through 2012 based on data findings from the administration of the instrument through 2012.

The new assessment was implemented in the fall, 2011 and spring, 2012 semesters. The assessment was also aligned with the 2010 AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians. The Collection and Development Policy Assessment data was disaggregated and reviewed by program faculty. The assessment will be continue to be implemented in accordance with the 2010 AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians.

3. Facilities Plan Assignment(assessment #3)

It has been suggested that more differentiation occur in the scoring of group work.

Scoring of this assessment reflected no scoring differentiation, in the scoring of group work, in the spring, 2012 administrations of this assessment. Program faculty members have subsequently revised this assessment to be in alignment with the 2010 AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians. The revised assessment #3 is titled, Facilities Exercise, and has a shift in focus from the total redesign of a facility to a redesigned grounded in current economic conditions. Program faculty will continue to encourage differentiation and scoring accountability of group work.


No changes were recommended based on the analysis of data.


In the most recent implementation of the Unit of Instruction assessment, candidates were presented with 4 model projects that exemplified the collaborative role of the school library media specialist. Continued emphasis will be placed on the collaborative role of the library media specialist; additional model projects will be presented, shared, and discussed.

Instruction will be presented in the appropriate use of APA style.

The scoring guide for assessment #5 indicates that the emphasis on collaborative instruction was effective in moving candidates into the target area for this element on the scoring guide. Fifteen of 19 (79%) candidates earned a target score of 3 in this collaborative area of the scoring guide. The average score for the collaborative element was 2.50, which is in the acceptable category for the following scoring guide:Target = 3 Acceptable = 2 Unacceptable = 0-1

More formal instruction was presented regarding APA style. Candidates scored in the acceptable levels for these criteria averaging a score of 4.14/5.00. Six of 17 candidates had issues with citing references in APA style, which may be an indication of reliance in online bibliographic generator tools that do not format in accordance with APA style or a reliance on downloading bibliographic entries from online databases which also do not always format the entries correctly.


The scores on the Audience Comprehension and Analysis category appear to be an anomaly in comparison to data for the same assessment over the past three years.

Given the relatively small sample of data for this report, more data is needed from future administration of the assessment before making recommendations.

All candidates scored at the target level, for the Audience Comprehension and Analysis category in the fall, 2011 administration of this assessment. The sample size for this fall, 2011 administration was again not significant, but when average with the samples from three previous administrations of the assessment, program faculty concluded this area is being adequately addressed via the coursework and subsequent assessment.


During a summer 2011 school library media faculty meeting to discuss the data, school library media faculty clarified the wording of the assessment document based on the recommendation of the instructors.

The rubric wording of the assessment document was revised in the summer 2011. The assessment was implemented in the spring, 2012 semester and additional feedback noted even more clarification was needed. The assessment was subsequently revised again in the summer 2012, based on the formative feedback. Several areas of the rubric were subdivided into more specific criteria. The assessment was also realigned with the 2010 AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians.

8. MARC Assignment/LOC Field Trip(assessment #8)

An assessment instrument is in the process of being developed. Formative assessment and revision of the instrument will continue through 2012 based on data findings from the administration of the instrument through 2012.

A new pathfinder assessment, titled Pathfinder was designed and will be implemented in the spring, 2013 semester. Based on faculty feedback, the new assessment incorporates the core MARC record element from the MARC Assignment/LOC Field Trip, but is also inclusive of 21st century elements related to the Organization of Knowledge.


Key Assessment Significant Findings1. Digital Portfolio In three implementations of the assessment 36/37 (97%) of the

candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges. Candidates scored well across all categories. There were no specific areas of concern noted.


In two implementations of the assessment 22/23 (96%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.

Scores on the Design, Layout and Format Dimension were on average in the low acceptable range. Formatting and documentation in APA Style was an apparent issue.

3. Facilities Plan Assignment In one implementations of the assessment 5/5 (100%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.

All five candidates scored at the target levels on all categories of the assessment. This assessment has been modified and realigned with the AASL 2010 Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians. The revised assessment will be implemented in 2012-2013.

4. Practicum Evaluation In three implementations of the assessment 22/22 (100%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.The data supports field-based mentor feedback that candidates were well-prepared for their practicum experiences. There are no areas of concern presented by the data or feedback from field-based mentors.


In one implementation of the Part I of the assessment 19/19 (100%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.

In two implementations of the Part II of the assessment 34/34 (100%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.

Candidates rubric scores for differentiating instruction for ELL students, Gifted and Talented students, and Students with Disabilities were on average less than acceptable levels. This was the first implementation of this assessment that required candidates to specifically address differentiating instruction for these three types of learners. Overall, candidates did not provide enough specificity when addressing differentiating instruction for each category of learners.

Seven of 19 candidates’ scores on the APA Style Dimension were less than the target level. This is a concern as APA style instruction, and guidance and provided for this implementation of

Key Assessment Significant Findingsthe assessment.

6. Information Literacy Model In one implementation of the assessment 8/8 (100%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges. Score for the Curriculum Alignment dimension were lower than scores for the other assessment dimensions. This may be attributable to modifications to the Maryland State Curriculum, and local school systems curriculum which are in the process of realignment with the Common Core curriculum.

7. Literature Project: Text Set In one implementation of the assessment 19/20 (95%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges. Two candidates did not complete the Text Set Organizer requirement. One candidate did not complete the majority of the assessment. The remaining 19 candidates completed all the criteria at the target level (except the aforementioned Text Set Organizer).

8. MARC Assignment/LOC Field Trip


In one implementations of the Part II of the assessment 6/6 (100%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.

Candidates’ scores for the MARC 245, 3XX, 4XX, and 8XX fields were low in comparison to recent r implementations of the assessment, candidates have scored at the on average at the target levels.

This was the last implementation of this assessment which has been replaced by a new assessment #8 titled, Pathfinder.


School library media formally faculty members meet semi-annually to discuss, disaggregate and analyze the data.


Key Assessment Significant Findings Actions

1. Digital Portfolio

In three implementations of the assessment 36/37 (97%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges. Candidates scored well across all categories. There were no specific areas of concern noted.

No specific actions are recommended. All the key assessments have been realigned with the AASL 2010 Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians, and will be formatively assessed during the 2012-13 academic semester, and summative assessment will occur at the end of each respective semester.


In two implementations of the assessment 22/23 (96%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.


Instructional guidance in APA Style will support the existing APA Style instruction designed for the course.


In one implementations of the assessment 5/5 (100%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.

All five candidates scored at the target levels on all categories of the assessment. This assessment has been modified and realigned with the AASL 2010 Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians. The revised assessment will be implemented in 2012-2013.

With a greater sample size, more differentiation in rubric scores will be anticipated.




Candidates rubric scores for differentiating instruction for ELL students, Gifted and Talented students, and Students with Disabilities were on average less than acceptable levels. This was the

An instructional module will be incorporated into the course to provide instruction, modeling and guidance for differentiating instruction for ELL students, Gifted and Talented students, and Students with Disabilities.

first implementation of this assessment that required candidates to specifically address differentiating instruction for these three types of learners. Overall, candidates did not provide enough specificity when addressing differentiating instruction for each category of learners.

Seven of 19 candidates’ scores on the APA Style Dimension were less than the target level. This is a concern as APA style instruction, and guidance and provided for this implementation of the assessment.


In one implementation of the assessment 8/8 (100%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges. Score for the Curriculum Alignment dimension were lower than scores for the other assessment dimensions. This may be attributable to modifications to the Maryland State Curriculum , and local school systems curriculum which are in the process of realignment with the Common Core curriculum.

With a greater sample size, more differentiation in rubric scores will be anticipated.




Candidate’s scores for the MARC 245, 3XX, 4XX, and 8XX fields were low in comparison to recent r implementations of the assessment, candidates have scored at the on average at the target levels.

No specific actions recommended other than the formative assessment of the new Assessment # 8 – Pathfinder.


AY13:

1. Have the change(s) in response to data that you documented last year had the desired effect on your program? Please provide specifics referencing prior changes that you submitted in Fall 2012, covering AY 2011-2012.

Note: From a holistic perspective, the fall 2012 marked the full implementation key assessments fully aligned with the AASL 2010 Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians.

Key Assessment Actions

1. Digital Portfolio

(Assessment #1)

There were no specific areas of concern noted with this assessment, and no subsequent changes or recommendations were initiated.


(Assessment #2)

2011-12 Data Findings: In two implementations of the assessment 22/23 (96%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.


Changes in Response to Data: More formal instruction in APA style was conducted in the ISTC 615 class in which this assessment was administered. Candidates in the off-campus cohort section performed well scoring an

average of 5.21 out 6 possible points on the documentation criteria for this assessment. On campus students scored on average a 3.67 out 6 possible points.

APA style instruction was also emphasized in two other school library media program courses, ISTC 541, Foundations of Instructional Technology and ISTC 667, Instructional Design and Development.


(assessment #3)

2011-12 Data Findings: In one implementations of the assessment 5/5 (100%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.

Changes in Response to Data: More individualization of the assessment was recommended. There was some differentiation among the scoring of the candidates on the 2012-13 implementation of this assessment in comparison to 2011-2012.


(assessment #4)


5. Unit of Instruction

(assessment #5)

2011-12 Data Findings: In one implementation of the Part I of the assessment 19/19 (100%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.


Candidates’ rubric scores for differentiating instruction for ELL students, Gifted and Talented students, and Students with Disabilities were on average less than acceptable levels. This was the first implementation of this assessment that required candidates to specifically address differentiating instruction for these three types of learners. Overall, candidates did not provide enough specificity when addressing differentiating instruction for

each category of learners.

Seven of 19 candidates’ scores on the APA Style Dimension were less than the target level. This is a concern as APA style instruction, and guidance and provided for this implementation of the assessment.

Changes in Response to Data: More emphasis was placed on the design of instruction for differentiated learners. Model assessments were shared with the candidates. These model assessments addressed differentiated instructional design for ELL students, Gifted and Talented students, and Students with Disabilities, and well as modeling appropriate APA style citation and documentation. Candidates scored well in the APA citation scoring in the high acceptable to target range. Scores in the design of instruction for ELL students are still in need of improvement with some students scoring in the unacceptable range. This continued emphasis will be placed on differentiated instruction. The University Reading and Literacy faculty have provided school library media faculty with resources and professional development in the instruction of ELL students. The resources and strategies acquired in the professional development will be embedded in the school library media program of instruction.


(assessment #6)

2011-12 Data Findings: In one implementation of the assessment, 8/8 (100%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges. Score for the Curriculum Alignment dimension were lower than scores for the other assessment dimensions. This may be attributable to modifications to the Maryland Common Core State Curriculum , and local school systems curriculum which are in the process of realignment with the Common Core curriculum.

Changes in Response to Data: All program references in syllabi and assessments to the Maryland Common Core State Curriculum were realigned to the Maryland Common Core State Curriculum. This assessment was also modified to align with the 2010 AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians. Candidates scored and the target level in aligning

curriculum in the 2012-13 implementations of this assessment.


(assessment #7)



(assessment #8)

2011-12 Data Findings: In one implementation of the Part I of the assessment, 6/6 (100%) of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.


Candidates’ scores for the MARC 245, 3XX, 4XX, and 8XX fields were low in comparison to recent r implementations of the assessment, candidates have scored at the on average at the target levels.


Changes in Response to Data: The new Pathfinder assessment was administered for the first time in the spring 2013.


As previously noted, all the program assessments were realigned and in some instances revised to conform to the 2010 AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians. From a macro perspective, the data reveals that candidates are performing at the acceptable or target levels on the key assessments. Three candidates (two percent) did not complete assessments at the acceptable level.

Two of these candidates are active in the program for a variety of reasons, including performance concerns.

Program faculty noted two data-based areas of concern. The first area in need of improvement is presenting candidates with strategies for effectively designing and implementing instruction with ELL students. The second area in need of improvement is that of APA style instruction and documentation. While there was some improvement seen in this area in comparison to 2011-2012, program faculty would like all candidates to master APA style.

General Concerns/Recommendations:

Program faulty also cited some general concerns driven more by qualitative observation than quantitative data. These concerns include:

A need for better access to an internal campus-based library catalog and collection management system specific to preK-12.

The transition to the 2010 AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians has increased the amount of writing (from 13 to 20 standards-based reflections) candidates must complete for their Digital Portfolio.

A need for stipends to compensate partners in local school systems for making guest appearances, and collaborating in a variety of courses.

A need to remove one criterion from key assessment #3, The Facilities Plan. This criterion is labeled relocation and moving plans. This criterion is generally not under the purview of the local school library media specialist.

Off campus teaching locations for cohort courses are frequently not approved by local school systems until less than two weeks before the start of respective courses. Improving communication between the Towson Learning Network and local school systems in confirming off campus sites is recommended.

Moving the data collection for the full design and implementation of the Unit of Instruction (assessment #5) from the ISTC 667 (Instructional Design and Development) course to ISTC 789 (Practicum and Portfolio) so that the design and implementation of the Unit of Instruction are completed in a concurrent semester.


School library media formally faculty members meet semi-annually to discuss, disaggregate and analyze the data.


Data-Based Findings Actions

The first area in need of improvement is presenting candidates with strategies for effectively designing and implementing instruction with ELL students.

Faculty will be utilizing resources available from the World Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) consortium. WIDA provides strategies and resources for meeting the needs of ELL students.

The second area in need of improvement is that of APA style instruction and documentation. While there was some improvement seen in this area in comparison to 2011-2012, program faculty would like all candidates to master APA style.

An APA Style online learning module will be developed for use in all program courses.

A need for better access to an internal campus based library catalog and collection management system specific to preK-12.

One faculty member has volunteered to contact vendors associated with local school systems to investigate obtaining Collection Management Software and a simulated digital collection.

The transition to the 2010 AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians has

Candidates will be provided the option of combining respective sub-standards into one piece

increased the amount of writing (from 13 to 20 standards-based reflections) candidates must complete for their Digital Portfolio.

of reflection writing (e.g. sub-standards 1.1-1.4) could be addressed in one piece of reflective writing.

A need for stipends to compensate partners in local school systems for making guest appearances, and collaborating in a variety of courses.

Funding sources are currently limited. The school library media program director will consult with College of Education administrators to explore potential finding sources for compensating guest speakers and collaborative partners.

A need to remove one criterion from key assessment #3, The Facilities Plan. This criterion is labeled relocation and moving plans. This criterion is generally not under the purview of the local school library media specialist.

The criterion will be removed from the assessment document and corresponding rubrics.

Off campus teaching locations for cohort courses are frequently not approved by local school systems until less than two weeks before the start of respective courses. Improving communication between the Towson Learning Network and local school systems in confirming off campus sites is recommended.

The school library media program director has been in communication with the Educational Technology and Literacy Department Chair and the Directors of the Towson Learning Network. Efforts have been initiated by the Towson Learning Network Directors to improve the process of securing off campus resources among local partnering school systems.

Moving the data collection for the full design and implementation of the Unit of Instruction (assessment #5) from the ISTC 667 (Instructional Design and Development) course to ISTC 789 (Practicum and Portfolio) so that the design and implementation of the Unit of Instruction are completed in a concurrent semester.

The instructional design process will continue to be taught in ISTC 667 (Instructional Design and Development). Data collection for the design and implementation of The Unit of Instruction (key assessment #5) will be moved to ISTC 789 (Practicum and Portfolio in School Library Media).

· web viewkey assessment # 3 (facilities plan assignment) - faculty will introduce the key...

Documents