Advanced Programs Committee

Minutes of the April 16, 2002 Meeting

 

Present: Diane Winder, Music; Sue Stickel, CSAP; Jennifer Hoffman (GA), Art; Chris Bocklage, Art; Joe Coyner, SPECED; Judy Williston, TED; Lisa Frankes, TED, Kaia Skaggs TED, Murali Nair, HPERD, Phil Cardon, BTE, Jane Gordon, TED, Carolyn Finch, Associate Dean, Mike Vogt, Economics

The meeting was called to order by Lisa Frankes, Co-Chair

Minutes from 3-19-02 were approved.

 

Mike Vogt presented materials on the Graduate Certificate Program in Economics.  The program has been designed to provide advanced coursework in economics.  This program is of interest to teachers who may be teaching economics and want to upgrade their knowledge base.  Students in the certificate program will be able to use coursework from the program if they continue with a masters degree program in teacher education.

 

Discussion of the program ensued concerning the advantages of a program that would provide an economics endorsement on the teaching certificate. Such programs would require 18 hours whereas the proposed program requires 15 hours.  It was suggested that many teachers would not seek to enter a master’s program that would not lead to advanced certification. The question was raised concerning whether or not the proposed coursework had been correlated with material that is tested on the MEAP.  Members of the committee also felt that checking with Dr. Nelson, in the history department concerning BDEU 526 Basic Business and Economics Education for Teachers would be appropriate.

It was moved and seconded to approve the proposed changes.

The motion was passed with the following recommendations:

1.      That requirements for adding an economics endorsement to the teaching certificate be examined

2.      That the courses be checked for content correlation with the objectives of the MEAP.

3.      That consultation take place with the history department

 

Lisa Frankes distributed folders containing due dates for folio materials and sample syllabi and vita materials for NCATE

 

Chris Bocklage presented materials in progress for the Art Education NCATE Folio

Members examine the Advanced Program in Art Education’s conceptual framework. People examined the matrices and commented that they clearly demonstrated alignment between NCATE standards, College of Education Outcomes, courses, and assessments. People felt the Art Program’s framework could be used as a model for other groups.

 

Members examined many 4  draft folios from different advanced programs.

Examination of the materials elicited a discussion of folio strengths and weaknesses that included the following comments:

 

1) Folio for Masters of Arts in Educational Psychology with a Concentration in Educational Media and Technology  

Members felt that the folio was an exemplary.  The College of Education outcomes were used to structure a description of the knowledge base.  Matrices clearly demonstrated alignment between program outcomes, courses, and what candidates will do to demonstrate proficiency

 

2) Folio for Master of Arts in Early Childhood

Members commented on the clear linkage between NAEYC Standards, the courses that address the specific standards and course experiences.  Judy Williston commented that the program area is continuing to work on clarifying criteria used for rubrics.

 

3) Folio for Master of Arts in Reading

Members commented that the draft is still being revised and will the document will need to demonstrate how course experiences and performance data are aligned with objectives.  In addition questions were asked about the meaning of “Institution’s Competency Levels” (Awareness, Basic understanding, Comprehensive Understanding) and how this section of the matrix was being used in relation to assessment of course outcomes.

 

4) Folio for Master of Arts in Educational Leadership

Members had some suggested recommendations for consolidating the matrices to more clearly demonstrate alignment between NCATE standards, Interstate School Leader Licensure Standards, courses, and assessments.  Different matrices showed limited amounts of information, for example, one matrix demonstrated alignment between student outcomes and courses and another demonstrated alignment between student outcomes and a set of standards.  The committee suggested creating 1 matrix that combines information from the different sets of matrices.