Meeting Notes – CEHS Curriculum Revision

Meeting Notes – Friday, May 16, 2014

While there was not an official curriculum redesign meeting, a portion of the EDST department meeting was dedicated to content relevant to the curriculum revision work.

Dean May provided an overview and information that Genesis, the student data management company, is going to enter into a long term arrangement with CEHS. All students and faculty in the EDST department will have access to the data sandbox that was developed on a trial basis for use this past Spring semester. We are contacting Genesis about coming to campus on Monday, June 23rd for a more in depth training and look at the data available. This is the same date as Pirate Adventure.

A large amount of time was dedicated to discussing and looking at the feedback from the ESED and SCED focus groups that took place at the end of the Spring 2014 semester. The PowerPoint presentation was distributed by the dean via email after the meeting. Dates for development of both short and long term goals for both programs were also communicated via email.

As part of the development of short term goals, the dean communicated the missing pieces for the Pass-Port portals to be developed for the Fall 2014 semester. This included items for ESED Portals 1, 2 and 3 and SCED Portals 1 and 2. Rubrics and assessments need to be completed by June 15.

The remainder of the meeting focused on EDST department business. Enjoy the activities and events related to commencement this weekend. We are looking forward to a productive summer and a great start to the Fall semester!

April 25, 2014 Curriculum Revision Meeting Notes

The following are the meeting notes and comments from the April 25, 2014 Curriculum Revision meeting.

Dean May took the lead on this meeting. She spent some time reviewing what we have done and discussed over the past year including:

Communicating and becoming familiar with the new CAEP standards
Identifying and mapping SPA standards, CAEP Standards, the new INTASC standards and the Danielson Framework to each other and cross-referencing them
Creating this blog for a single point of communication and resources
Gathering and compiling syllabi in one location within the blog for reference and communication
Visiting groups and presentations – Technology Advisory Committee and the Genesis and NJEA SGO presentations
Continuing work within Pass-Port and the Portals
Gathering feedback from students and alumni via focus groups and surveys
Evaluating and discussing how the current curriculum might be redesigned and realigned to better meet our students’ needs

Dean May provided several resources to help further the discussion and consider next steps. One of the excerpts provided was from the Journal of Teacher Education. The entire article on Core Practices and Pedagogies of Teacher Education: A Call for a Common Language and Collective Activity can be found within the Scholarship and Teaching section of this blog.

The dean noted that we are ending our year of information gathering and reflection. It’s time for programs to meet and establish some short and long term strategic goals for program continuous improvement. The short term goals should focus on essential steps before the start of the fall semester, while the long term goals should have interim steps and deadlines throughout the next academic year.

When programs have established their short and long term goals, we will look for common goals to maximize resource support. Programs do not have to pursue all of the same goals, but where there is a sensed need across the unit, we will work collaboratively.

March 28, 2014 Meeting Notes

This post is a little delayed. Apologies for the slow follow up to the meeting. Due to a number of different circumstances, this meeting had a smaller turnout of attendees and was basically combined with the EDST Department meeting.

Following are the main topic areas that were discussed and required follow up or next steps:

1. Genesis Overview – The faculty who were able to attend the Genesis presentation Wednesday, March 5th provided an overview and gave feedback on the session, Genesis as a student information database and inpout on the lesson plan format that is used within the Genesis system. Dr. Devlin-Scherer. Dr. Carr, Dr. Daly and Dr. Peskin all provided their feedback. If you were unable to attend the Genesis session or the Curriculum Revision meeting and would like more information, please feel free to contact one of those faculty members or stop by JH Room 434 for a Genesis folder/packet.

2. Alumni Survey – Final review and feedback on the Initial Programs and IDAT/SLMS Alumni Survey was requested from the faculty. That input was included in a draft that was emailed to faculty on April 4th for final approval. In the time between this meeting and posting of these notes, the surveys have been created in Qualtrics and are ready for electronic distribution to alumni who have graduated between 2010 and 2013. We are waiting to receive alumni contact information from the alumni office and then they will be distributed.

3. Pass-Port Portals – A spreadsheet was distributed and discussed with those in attendance. It included a starting point of what could be included in Portals 1, 2, 3 and 4 for each major and secondary education concentration. The request was made that by the end of the Spring 2014 semester each program provide feedback and input as to what assessments should be included in each portal. Specifically, Secondary Education was asked to identify key assessments for Portals 1 and 2 and ESED were to verify and validate Portals 1, 2 and 3.

4. Supervisor Training – There was feedback and a request from some faculty to look into providing training or an information session for the supervisors to ensure consistency and standardization of messaging and observations. Some of the topics discussed as possible topics for inclusion in the session were classroom management, what to observe and look for at each field observation, how to communicate in a respectful, kind and supportive manner with interns, lesson plan approval and review, and a method for improving communication between faculty, supervisors and cooperating teachers. Dr. Peskin, Dr. Mueller and Dr. Liberty volunteered to help coordinate this effort.

Curriculum Revision Meeting Notes from February 21, 2014

Due to a number of factors, there was smaller attendance than usual at this meeting.

Pass-Port
A portion of the meeting was spent reviewing Pass-Port and evaluating the portal system. A spreadsheet was emailed to faculty with the current layout of assessments in each of the four portals. Faculty have been asked to review the key assessments for each major in each of the four portals and provide feedback and suggestions prior to the next meeting on March 28, 2014. By the end of the meeting, the goal is for ESED/DVSL to have assessments for Portal 3 identified and SCED to have Portal 1 identified, at a minimum.

Alumni Survey
The alumni survey for EDST inital program, SLMS and IDAT was reviewed at the meeting and emailed to faculty for review and feedback. The survey was last disributed in the Spring of 2012 to recent alumni. Dean May asked the department to review the survey, evaluate the questions and determine if there are any additional or new questions that would provide valuable data and information for the department moving forward. Feedback and suggestions for revisions to the survey are requested to be submitted prior to the March 28, 2014 meeting so a final survey can be approved at the meeting.

Outside Presentations and Vendors
There were two presentations and dates reviewed at the meeting.

Genesis – a web based student information system company was at SHU on Wednesday, March 5th to showcase their program. Several faculty and a number of the senior student teachers attended the session. There will be a follow up and information provided at the next meeting on March 28th.

NJEA SGO Session – Two members of the NJEA professional development will be joining us on Friday, April 11th at 10am to review and outline the Student Growth Outcome (SGO) mandate that was implemented in New Jersey this school year. We hope you can join us for this presentation.

Online/Hybrid Course Syllabus
A syllabus template for Online/Hybrid courses was presented at the meeting. It was also distributed via email to faculty for review and comments. Comments and feedback should be provided prior to the next meeting on March 28th.

Curriculum Revision Meeting Notes January 24, 2014

The Curriculum Revision meeting held on January 24, 2014 was focused on taking a step back and evaluating questions proposed by Dean May to refocus and consider where we are, how we got here and how to strategize where we are going.

The following are the questions provided as a prompt for faculty to discuss:

How has the job of teachers changed in the past ten years?

What have our programs done to address those changes?

• Were the things we did strategic and comprehensive or good patch work?

Do you think that students could explain the relationship between courses in the program?

Do they experience them as developmental interrelated pieces or as distinct, somewhat connected events? Where can a student, faculty member or reviewer find information explaining our programs?

As individual faculty, and as program faculty, what do you wish you could include or do differently that you have not figured out how to?

How has the answer to the question posed over a year ago–what should students be doing in the field when not teaching a lesson–been addressed?

• Would students be able to answer the question? Could they answer why we think the field experience is important beyond the lessons taught?
• Would the expectation be known to supervisors? In writing somewhere?
• How does that nonlesson learning in the field get processed, used, tied back to classes?

What is your greatest fear when thinking about curriculum updates in response to the educational landscape today?

This document has the questions along with comments/feedback from the meeting.

Meeting Notes from December 13, 2013 Curriculum Revision Meeting

At the last Curriculum Revision meeting, the focus continued to be on what we want students to be able to do and know by the end of their freshman year. The Secondary Education and Elementary Education/Special Education departments worked independently to identify key factors for their respective students. Based on the information that was covered, more time is needed to focus on moving through not only freshman year, but sophomore, junior and senior years as well.

The notes from the meeting are organized to identify the areas of common ground identified by both Secondary Education and Elementary Education/Special Education and then identifies those areas specific to each department. The notes are available here and also in the calendar section of the blog.

Meeting Notes from November 22, 2013 Curriclum Revision Meeting

The curriculm revision meeting held on November 22nd focused on evaluating and discussing the freshman year course syllabi, content, assessments and learning outcomes. The primary objective was to discuss and outline what we want the freshmen students to be able to know and do by the time they complete their first year of courses.

The outline of the notes taken at the November meeting are available here, and are also linked to the meeting date in the Calendar section of this blog. Any comments, additions or corrections are welcome. We will be continuing the discussion at our next meeting on December 13th.

CR Meeting Notes from October, 25, 2013 Meeting

Thanks to all of our new subscribers!

The faculty of the EDST department met on Friday, October 25, 2013 for our second Curriculum Revision meeting. The primary focus of the meeting was to continue to look at the new CAEP Standards, the new NJ DOE regulations and determine how and where the CEHS could focus in order to better align with the new standards and regulations.

This document is the original CAEP and NJ DOE alignment and it also integrates all of the notes from both the September and October curriculum revision meetings.

The following are some of the key take aways or potential action items from the meetings and notes (in no particular order):

1. How does/can SHU differentiate from the other 23 EPPs (Education Preparation Providers) in the state of NJ? What can we do to make it more attractive financially? How can we increase retention? How can we identify grant funds for SHU Ed majors to help attract and retain students? Is there STEM funding for Ed Math & Science majors?

2. How, when and in what capacity is the best way to engage alumni to help improve the programs and gain better insight?

3. What is the best way to evaluate field placement schools and cooperating teachers to ensure the best field experiences for our students?

4. Is it possible for CEHS to develop a relationship with another PDS? Possible in an urban setting and potentially with a focus on STEM?

5. In an effort to better understand the effective integration of technology in K-12 schools and how to better prepare our students on the use of technology, CEHS is actively pursuing putting together a Tech Advisory Committee focus group. This group would consist of tech supervisors and coordinators at field placement schools and a few CEHS faculty and would seek to understand the possible gaps in what is happening in schools and how our students are prepared. The work following the focus group would be to develop strategies to close any gaps.

6. How and where can EDST work to better bridge the gap in technology within the syllabi and curriculum to ensure integration and continuity? The suggestion was made that we begin by looking at the freshman year courses’ syllabi, learning goals and assessments to assess alignments. During this process it is important to keep an eye on the technology components throughout the CAEP and InTASC standards.

7. Currently, the InTASC standards are presented to seniors in the EDST program. Do the standards need to be introduced to students earlier? Possibly as early as freshman year?

8. As a point of reference, the faculty recognized the need to show the students how to access and conduct research. Where and how can this be integrated in the curriculum?

9. With the new standards, there is a need to look at the current student teacher evaluation and consider changing it or adding to the current model. Some possible options are: a) add a video component to the current Teacher Work Sample evaluation, b) consider using EdTPA and c) look at the Critical Competence Inventory that was developed as a student teacher evaluation tool by a consortium of NJ colleges.

10. Considering the new state regulations for students to pass the Core Academic Test before being admitted into an education program, students would need to pass it by the Fall of their Sophomore year. This raised the possible need to develop an orientation for freshman to help align and prepare them for passing the Core Academic Test. This requirement is explained in more detail in this post.

11. In an effort to increase communication and learn from each other, it was suggested to look for opportunities to cross-teach and learn from colleagues in many different areas, but particularly in the area of technology. How and where can we provide opportunities for internal professional development and cross-teaching?

12. Continue work on aligning the SPA standards with the InTASC standards.

Curriculum Revision Meeting – Friday, September 27, 2013

The faculty from the Department of Educational Studies, along with the Dean of College of Education and Human Services, held their first meeting to kick off the curriculum redesign process.

The focus of the meeting was to introduce this blog and then to have the faculty break up into groups and review the five new CAEP standards. The task was to evaluate the language and expectations in the five standards and provide notes, questions and feedback to the entire group on where CEHS was already succeeding and meeting the standards, what are new areas to the standards not previously addressed and in which areas we can improve.

Due to the high level of engagement of the faculty groups, we were only able to provide feedback and notes on the first two standards. The faculty and department will continue the discussion and review of the remaining three CAEP Standards at the next meeting scheduled on Friday, October 25th at 9:30 in the 4th floor media lab.

The CAEP and NJDOE regulations alignment document and the Diversity alignment between CAEP and InTASC, both documents discussed and used during the meeting, can be found here.