The Need to Meet Accreditation Standards: A Systems Analysis of Technology Integration in Teacher

Education

Lincoln University of MissouriDivision of EducationDr. Cynthia Chapel

Mary MasiCopyright Mary Masi and Cynthia Chapel, 2004. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author: chapelc@lincolnu.edu or masim@lincolnu.edu.

A crowded slide for a crowded issue:

CHALLENGE: Meeting Multiple Accreditation Agencies’ Standards

• National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)• Faculty must model applicable uses of technology • Candidates must facilitate P-12 student use and learning of technology• The institution provided resources and support to faculty and students

• Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)• Demonstrate understanding of instructional technology concepts• Plan and design effective learning environments and experiences• Implement curriculum including instructional technologies• Uses technology to facilitate assessment and evaluation• Use technology to enhance productivity and professional practice• Demonstrate understanding of ethical and human issues• Faculty model and reflect best practices

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)

Faculty must model applicable uses of technology Candidates must facilitate P-12 student use and learning of technologyThe institution must provide resources and support to faculty & students

NCATE STANDARDS REQUIRE:

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)

Demonstrate understanding of instructional technology concepts Plan and design effective learning environments and experiences Implement curriculum including instructional technologies Uses technology to facilitate assessment and evaluation Use technology to enhance productivity and professional practice Demonstrate understanding of ethical and human issues Faculty model and reflect best practices in technology use

DESE STANDARDS REQUIRE:

Why So Many?

Federal Government

State Government

NCATEP-K Schools

DESELincoln University

Division Education

Meeting the Challenge

The Process

Step 1: Identify System Type

Step 1: Identify System TypeOPEN SYSTEM

Open systems function in an interactive cycle of receiving input from the environment, transforming that input internally, developing out put in accordance with transformations and receiving feedback on those transformations, thus beginning the cycle once again.

Rothwell and Kazanas, 1992

Step 2: Map the Sphere of Influence

Step 2: Map the Sphere of Influence

LU Division of Education functions as a Macro system:

Macro systems function at the institutional level .

The Division functions within the Mega system of America's K-12 educational system, yet serves to influence fulfilling the needs of individual stakeholders (e.g., future K-12 teachers and students).

Kaufman et al, 2001

Magnified View of Sphere of Influence

Step 3: The Mega Statement

Step 3: The Mega StatementStatement of Ideal Vision for Change

The Ideal Vision for this enhanced of the use of educational technology is to foster a climate of knowledge and attitude of innovation within the Division Education at Lincoln University that leads to teacher education curricula that impart sound skills and methods to teacher education graduates, who, in turn, will take those skills and methods into the K-12 classroom, thus enhancing the quality of education provided to K-12 students, as well as fostering in them sound technology attitudes and skills to the long-term benefit of America's future.

Kaufman et al, 2001

Step 4: Entity/Stakeholder RelationshipsWhat “is” vs. What “should be”

Step 4: Entity/Stakeholder RelationshipsWhat “is” vs. What “should be”

(A Short Example)

Stakeholder Stakeholder Input (is) Stakeholder Process(is) Stakeholder Output (is)

DESE (Department of Ed)

Accreditation Standards Mandates for compliance to program

standards

Approval of current LU K-12 teacher education programs

Lincoln University

Division of Education

*Policy and procedure*Personnel Software technology *Climate, culture and support systems

*Procedures continued 5 years (or more) without revision *Haphazard technology training and support *scattered acceptance of the need for immediate change

· *No formal policy or procedures for the use of educational technology exists. · *Faculty members are left to attempt technology innovation without the assistance of technical support staff, or ignore the need to innovate entirely. *A climate of resistance goes un-addressed.

Step 4: Entity/Stakeholder RelationshipsWhat “is” vs. What “should be”

(A Short Example)

Stakeholder Stakeholder Input (should be)

Stakeholder Process (should be)

Stakeholder Output (should be)

DESE (Department of Ed)

*Accreditation Standards*Systematic & Action plans for the implementation of new/revised standards

*Mandates for compliance to program standards *Training and advisement in implementation methods * Resources for acquiring funding

*Continued approval of current LU teacher education programs *Ongoing, active assistance with implementing changes in accreditation standards

Lincoln University

Division of Education

*Policy and procedure *Personnel *Software*Climate, culture and support systems

*Clear planning of policy & process for the use of technology *Providing support personnel*Address fostering a climate of innovation

· *Formal policy & procedure *Support staff to identify & meet needs for training, innovation attitudes *Ongoing assessment of technology needs

Step 5: Causal Analysis

Step 5: Causal Analysis A Small Example

Needs (Gaps in results)

Ideal Processes and Inputs (should be)

Current processes and inputs (is)

Potential causes

The LU Division of Education is left to improvise to meet additional accreditation standards without guidance as to what innovations might best fulfill the updated standards.

Mandates for compliance to program standards accompanied by training and advisement in methodology and the acquisition of funding for meeting those mandates.

Mandates for compliance to program standards

*Truncated funding for all levels of education management *A lack of communication of needs from accredited institutions (including LU) *The lack of a policy within the accrediting agency

Step 6: Solution Analysis

Step 6: Solution AnalysisA Small Example

Needs >>>>>>Stakeholder Output is

>(from Step 4)

Stakeholder Output Should be

Likely Causes for Needs Gap(from Step 5)

Potential Solutions

LU allocates funds for academic and technical staff, provides pre-configured computer equipment, and access to those software technologies provided through its partnership with the computer management company Collegis.

LU should provided funding, technical assistance, software training and instructional design support at the division level throughout the university.

*Truncated funded across all levels of education *A lack of perception of, or knowledge of need on the part of the university administration *A lack of cooperation between faculty and administration in the development of educational technology policy and procedure *A lack of adequate communication of needs

*Better communication between faculty members and university officials concerning needs associated with educational technology *Instituted policy and procedure concerning the use of educational technologies at the university level *More input from the faculty members in decisions surrounding the selection & implementation of educational technologies

References

• Kaufman, R., Watkins, R., & Leigh, D. (2001). Useful educational results: Defining, prioritizing and achieving. Lancaster, PA: Proactive Publishing.

• Rothwell, W.J. & Kazanas, H.C. (1992). Mastering the instructional design process: A systematic approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.