1
PROPOSAL FOR THE CREATION OF
THE INSTITUTE FOR PROFESSIONAL STUDIES IN EDUCATION
I. Purposes
A. Provide institute's Mission Statement (if extant) and a statement of the
institute's overall goals and objectives.
VISION AND MISSION STATEMENT
The vision and mission of the Institute of Professional Studies in
Education is:
To build a Master Teachers Community dedicated to
improving the craft of teaching in order to help all students reach their
highest potential.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Teaching
The Institute of Professional Studies in Education will continue providing unique
pedagogy (i.e., learning-in-community, constructivist model, teacher leadership, and
classroom action research).
Learning Outcomes
Learning Outcomes – Every Learning Community graduate student will…
1) Improve content and pedagogical knowledge.
2) Experience professional and personal transformation.
3) Implement action research.
4) Utilize authentic assessment.
5) Exhibit teacher leadership.
6) Improve PK-16 student learning.
7) Support PK-16 student development and self efficacy.
Research
1. Continue research in “best practice” models of educational practice (i.e., learning
community outcomes; transformation; comparison of traditional, hybrid, and
online delivery systems);
2. Continue innovative theory to practice research;
3. Continue research in the use of technology in education.
Service
2
Academic Staff in the existing ME-PD Learning Community will continue to be actively
involved in the development and implementation of service activities in these areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Be involved in service to the university at the department, college, university,
and system level;
Be involved in service at the professional level by actively participating in the
Association for Teacher Educators (ATE) and ASCD (formerly the Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development);
Active participation on community committees and boards; and
Professional Development workshops to schools and community agencies.
Outreach Activities
All current outreach activities will continue. These activities include off-campus sites for
the Learning Community program. Academic staff and faculty will continue outreach
activities within their schools and at community agencies and schools, workshops and
other presentations to the community and schools related to pressing social issues, and
participation on community boards and committees.
B. Briefly describe the academic programs housed in the institute and any
interdisciplinary programs to which the institute is a major contributor. If
one or more of the institute’s academic programs have goals and objectives
not listed above, include them here.
The Institute for Professional Studies in Education will house the Master of EducationProfessional Development (ME-PD) Learning Community program. The ME-PD
Learning Community degree is an off-campus program based on a learning-incommunity, constructivist philosophy. The program is designed for certified teachers as
well as professionals from other fields seeking to meet desired professional
advancement goals or graduate students wishing to pursue a master’s degree for other
career goals. The program does not grant teacher certification/licensure.
The ME-PD LC curriculum, aligned to Wisconsin Teacher Standards and the National
Board of Professional Teaching Standards, is integrated and spiraled over four
semesters. The ME-PD LC program is offered through three off-campus delivery
models: face-to-face, hybrid, and online. Face-to-face and hybrid delivery models are
offered throughout the State of Wisconsin. Students can expect to spend 14-20 hours
per week outside of class time completing required readings, written work, online work
utilizing Desire2Learn (D2L), and applying learning to their work settings. Students
develop an individualized Professional Development Plan (PDP) that guides them
through the two year program. From the PDP students develop a portfolio that serves
as evidence of growth and application to practice. Students can also elect to incorporate
Wisconsin PI-34 criteria into their PDP. As students move through the program they
also choose an area of emphasis for Action Research which culminates in a scholarly
research paper.
3
The 30-credit graduate program influences how students think about their learning,
teaching and assessment while allowing for constant improvement for their PK-16
students and their own practice. Participants learn practical skills immediately applicable
for the work setting that can be tied to district or workplace goals.
II. Curriculum
A. Describe whether the institute's academic program(s) is/are typical of your
discipline(s), and if they are distinctive in some ways.
The ME-PD Learning Community program is distinctive compared to other graduate
programs in education because of its learning-in-community philosophy. According to
DuFour (2004), the focus of a learning community philosophy is on student learning
rather than teaching. This emphasis is a significant shift in education and has major
implications for teachers. The learning-in-community philosophy drives our program in
that we believe that all students can learn. It is our job to determine how best to ensure
that students are learning at their highest ability.
The program is an innovative field-based master’s program combining elements of a
university master’s degree with elements of field-based staff development. This is a
unique distinction. There are two parts of the program that make up the whole. First
there is the Master of Education (ME) part of the program that consists of the university
based academic components of the degree. In our program the ME part consists of the
seven curricular strands, the ME-PD Learning Community outcomes, the Wisconsin 10
Teaching Standards, and the National Teaching Standards. Next is the Professional
Development (PD) part of the program. The Professional Development component of
the program consists of ongoing training opportunities we provide both graduate faculty
facilitators and learners. Facilitators receive professional development on a monthly
basis that is organized around our seven curricular strands. Additionally, facilitators
participate in two annual retreats, one in August and one in February, that occur over a
weekend. The intent of the monthly Facilitator Developments and the two retreats is to
allow facilitators opportunities to share new innovations they are using in their
classrooms and to continually build our community of educators.
The ME-PD Learning Community program engages groups of 20 to 40 practicing
teachers in an intensive two-year learning experience designed to improve professional
knowledge, skills, and dispositions based on the Wisconsin Teacher Standards
identified by the Department of Public Instruction. Development and implementation of
the program is conducted the ME-PD Learning Community academic staff. Students
are recruited in various geographic regions through-out the State of Wisconsin for the
face-to-face and hybrid delivery models through informational meetings held within local
school settings or online. Recruitment for the online program is conducted through
web-focused marketing. Marketing for all delivery models also includes mailings,
posters, and flyers. When the number of teachers interested in enrolling in a particular
learning community reaches approximately 15, the site becomes official. For the faceto-face and hybrid delivery models the sponsoring district then agrees to provide
4
physical facilities for the learning community and some logistical support for the
program.
Teachers who enroll make a two-year commitment to achieve the two ME-PD goals: 1)
to improve professional practice and 2) to earn a master’s degree. In the face-to-face
program, communities meet all-day Saturday and Sunday for a total of fifteen hours for
ten weekends, August through May, for two years. In the hybrid program communities
meet face-to-face at the beginning of the semester and at the end of the semester. The
online program is an 18-month program that includes face-to-face institutes over two
summers. University leadership consists of teams of two or three graduate faculty
facilitators, depending upon the size of the community.
Constructivist learning principles are applied in the program and challenge participants
to bring current teaching issues to the learning setting (Brooks & Brooks, 2003).
Learners are asked to present problems of most relevance to students, organize
learning around key concepts, ask for and value students’ viewpoint, adapt teaching to
deal with student suppositions, and assess learning in the context of teaching practices.
Additional professional commitments expressed in the design of the program include:
learning in community, integrated curricula, reflective practice, and assessment of
learning outcomes in the teaching context.
The program provides early and intense emphasis on reflective practice as a basis for
self-assessment and identification of both individual and group learning needs.
Participants study the learning community commitments, Wisconsin Teacher Standards,
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and Wisconsin Model Academic
Standards specific to content area (i.e. Science, Physical Education, Art, etc.). Students
participate in self and peer assessments related to the standards and develop a
professional development plan for personal and professional growth and competence.
In reflecting on the ME-PD Learning Community program and students’ observations,
there are clear parallels to the concept of transformative learning. Transformative
learning (Mezirow, 2000) appeared in the adult learning literature in the mid-1970s to
describe changes adult learners experienced while assimilating experiences that lead
them to make major changes on the ways they viewed the world.
B. Briefly summarize how the curriculum and instruction of your program
reflects the contemporary emphases and trends of your discipline(s).
The ME-PD Learning Community program utilizes a unique spiraled, scaffolded, and
integrated curriculum. Additionally, the master’s degree reflects contemporary
emphases and trends in teacher education in several areas:




Learning-in-community philosophy
Field-based delivery
Constructivist philosophy
Reflective practice
5


Transformative learning
Experiential
C. State the minimum total number of credits required to earn the master’s
degree in your academic program.
The ME-PD Learning Community master’s degree is a 30-credit program. The program
is a two-year cohort model program.
III.
Assessment of Student Learning & Degree of Program Success
1. State the student learning outcomes for the institute. If applicable, state
separate learning outcomes for any additional academic programs or
graduate programs housed in the institute. (Student learning outcomes
are best stated in the form of the subject matter, cognitive development,
and skills the students will demonstrate upon completion of the program
(e.g., “Upon completion of the program, students will be able to …”).
Learning Outcomes – Every ME-PD Learning Community graduate student
will…
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Improve content and pedagogical knowledge.
Experience professional and personal transformation.
Implement action research.
Utilize authentic assessment.
Exhibit teacher leadership.
Improve PK-16 student learning.
Support PK-16 student development and self efficacy.
a. The institute may choose to provide a table or matrix to demonstrate
how individual courses relate to these student learning outcomes.
See Table 2 below in the assessment data section.
2. Provide assessment data collected during the review period used to
determine the level of success in the program for students’ achieving the
desired outcomes. If it is helpful, include data from previous years for
comparison purposes. Please refer to program biennial assessment
reports and attach as appendices.
Evaluation Data to Validate Effectiveness
According to the Higher Learning Commission, “Assessment of student learning is a
participatory, iterative process that:

Provides data/information you need on your students’ learning
6




Engages you and others in analyzing and using this data/information to confirm
and improve teaching and learning
Produces evidence that students are learning the outcomes you intended
Guides you in making educational and institutional improvements
Evaluates whether changes made improve/impact student learning, and
documents the learning and your efforts (Higher Learning Commission, 2006).”
The ME-PD Learning Community program utilizes several different types of
assessments including a Student Evaluation Instrument (SEI) to evaluate graduate
faculty facilitators, learners, and program learning outcomes. Following is a list of
facilitator, staff, and student assessments describing the assessment time line, the
person responsible for the assessment and the method of delivering the assessment
(Table 1).
Table 1. ME-PD Learning Community Assessments
Assessment
1st semester learner
survey
4th semester learner
survey
Facilitator SEI
Time Line
August and January
Facilitator
Development
Support Specialists
ME-PD Director
ME-PD LC Program
Graduate Faculty
Retreats
Annual
LC
November
Conference
Facilitator
Development
ME-PD LC
Graduates
February
December and May
December and May
February
February
August and
February
November
Monthly
As needed
Participants
All
ME-PD
LC
students
All
ME-PD
LC
students
All
ME-PD
LC
students
Graduate Faculty
Facilitators
Method
Qualtrics Survey
All faculty and staff
All faculty and staff
All faculty and staff
Qualtrics Survey
Qualtrics Survey
Qualtrics Survey
All ME-PD LC
students, faculty,
and staff
All faculty and staff
Qualtrics Survey
Former ME-PD LC
students
Qualtrics Survey
Qualtrics Survey
Qualtrics Survey
Qualtrics Survey
Qualtrics Survey
The ME-PD Learning Community program has the following seven learning outcomes
listed above. Table 2 delineates the ME-PD LC seven learning outcomes.
Table 2. Learning Outcomes Rubric from ME-PD Learning Community Program
7
Improve
content and
pedagogical
knowledge
Introduction
1
Learner reflects on
current content
and pedagogical
knowledge
Exploration
2
Learner explores new
content and
pedagogical
knowledge
Integration
3
Learner integrates
new content and
pedagogical
knowledge into their
current practice
Action
4
Learner takes content beyond
his/her own classroom.
Develops a systematic way to
evaluate new content and
pedagogical knowledge.
Experience
professional
and
personal
transformati
on.
Learner reflects on
current status as a
professional and
as a learner,
group member,
person…
Learner integrates
knowledge of self as
a person and
professional into
his/her professional
life and/or within the
LC by . . .
Learner is active in assisting
others to also personally and
professionally transform, by
engaging in conversations,
collaborating with colleagues,
and acting as a model for
leadership in personal and
professional life.
Conduct
action
research
Learner becomes
familiar with the
structure and
philosophy
(goals?) of A.R.
Learner explores
fields of study on
personality
typologies/various
approaches to
learning/group
dynamics, engages in
reflection to match
personal strengths
with areas of need.
Learner explores the
possible AR topics for
his/her workplace
and develops a plan
to conduct A.R.
Learner integrates
Action Research into
his/her workplace.
Learner publicly shares
results of A.R. and has a plan
for the next steps.
Utilize
authentic
assessment
Learner
understands the
term “authentic
assessment” and
is able to reflect
on his/her current
practice
Learner is
introduced to
examples of
teacher leadership
Learner explores
options for utilizing
authentic assessment
in his/her workplace
Learner integrates
authentic
assessment into
his/her workplace
and reflects on the
impact it has on
student learning
Learner takes on a
leadership role in
the area of choice
and reflects on the
impact on his/her
teaching situation
and the success of
his/her students.
Learner takes authentic
assessment practices beyond
his/her practice by sharing
with colleagues, effecting
change in the school or
district, or presenting to a
conference.
Learner expands the nature
or scope of leadership to by
using leadership skills to
implement a new program,
practice, or event in his/her
school or district and reflects
on the impact of the change
on student learning.
Learner integrates a
variety of theories of
learning (specifically
state strategies) into
his/her workplace
and evaluates the
effectiveness of
each.
Learner integrates
changes in his/her
practice that are
specifically geared to
improving student
self efficacy, and
develops a way to
Learner takes the results of
his/her improvements in
student learning and shares
with colleagues in school,
district, or the educational
community at large.
Exhibit
teacher
leadership
Improve PK16 student
learning
Learner reflects on
the current status
of what, how, and
how well his/her
current students
are learning.
Support PK16 student
developmen
t and self
efficacy
Learner reflects on
the current level of
self efficacy in
students and how
he/she might
affect changes to
improve efficacy
Learner explores
various aspects of
his/her profession or
workplace that
he/she is passionate
about and what the
contribution to
improve that aspect
may be.
Learner explores
theories of student
learning, and begins
to plan for
implementing the
changes necessary
to improve student
learning.
By exploring the
impact of self-efficacy
on learning, the
learner begins to plan
for changes in his/her
practice that will
positively impact
Learner shares the results of
improvement in student self
efficacy with colleagues,
suggests changes school
wide, or presents at a
conference on the impact of
the changes on student self
8
skills.
student self efficacy.
measure the impact
of the changes.
efficacy.
Possible ways to document evidence of the Learning Outcomes:
 Develop a common core of assignments and projects across semesters
 integrate into semester grading
 integrate into PDP
 use as final validation
Current 1st semester and 4th semester evaluation data for 2007-2009 indicates
significant changes in many teachers competencies (see Table 3). Some questions
have a lower percentage change because they were already at a higher percent (e.g., I
love teaching”, “I am extremely passionate about my field of education”, “I have team
taught with another teacher”, and “I believe all students have something to offer”).
Table 3: 1st Semester/4th Semester Percentage Change
Question
1. I consider myself a teacher-leader
2. I have mentored other teachers
3. I have a strong knowledge of best
practices in my field of education
4. I have presented at a professional
conference
5. I have led staff development
6. I have engaged in action research
7. I collaborate often with colleagues in
order to improve my practice
8. I have team taught with another teacher
9. I view myself as a facilitator
10. I have strong facilitation skills
11. I am extremely passionate about my
field of education
12. I believe I can effectively communicate
with administrators
13. I have a tendency to focus on solutions
rather than problems
14. I reflect on my practice
15. I am resourceful
16. I love teaching
17. I evaluate situations with an objective
approach
18. I am a good listener
19. I believe relationships are important in
education
Percentage Change
63
43
59
68
38
93
27
10
57
58
24
32
31
52
35
10
30
11
10
9
20. I love what I teach
21. I believe all students have something to
offer
22. I believe all students can achieve
23. I value the diversity of learners
24. I engage in self-assessment
25. I strive for continuous improvement
26. I am a passionate educator
27. I have an awareness of political issues
in education
10
4
96
12
48
18
9
38
Additionally, research conducted within the ME-PD Learning Community master’s
degree indicates that students experience transformation by participating in the program
(Hiebert, Bakkum, & Wagner, 2005; Rabbitt, Hiebert, & Markos, 2009). The educational
practices commonly applied within the ME-PD learning community program are highly
compatible with practices shown to facilitate transformative learning.
3. Discuss important changes made to the program during this review period
that were a result of assessment data (linking changes to the data) collected
during the current or previous review periods. (These changes might include
revisions to the curriculum, student learning performance objectives, course
scheduling, departmental or advising procedures, instructional methods,
curriculum delivery methods, assessment data collection procedures, etc.)
Also discuss potential revisions to the curriculum that you foresee over the
next review period based on results of assessment of performance objectives.
The ME-PD Learning Community program is listed as part of the Department of
Education Studies APR Self-Study and Review. Based on feedback from the 2006
review the program made the following changes:



Clearly defined in the Staff and Student handbooks the content off the
Professional Development Plan portfolio and the nature of the capstone action
research project.
Continued monitoring of all assessments as they relate to student and program
outcomes.
Developed common assessments for student and program outcomes.
The ME-PD Learning Community curriculum is reviewed on a yearly basis based on
assessment data. The curriculum is updated with new best practices in education as
appropriate.
10
4. State the learning outcomes for all University Core courses taught through
the institute and the assessment of these outcomes and any important
changes made to the courses due to assessment data.
The Institute for Professional Studies will offer no University Core courses at this time.
5. If a program course contains greater than 50% online delivery,
discuss the use and effectiveness of this course. Compare any
replacement of face to face contact hours with online activities.
The ME-PD Learning Community master’s degree will start its first online program in
Fall 2011. The online program incorporates two summer face-to-face institutes to
complement the three semester online delivery model.
Rationale for Offering the ME-PD Learning Community Program Online
UW-La Crosse has a very successful Master of Education-Professional Development
Learning Community program that is delivered off-campus throughout the State of
Wisconsin. Most of the students in this off-campus program are working PK-16
educators. We often have teachers and other human services professionals from outof-state or who live in remote areas of the Wisconsin inquire about the program. For
these individuals it is not feasible for them to travel to one of our marketed Learning
Community sites to complete the 2 year program. One of the major reasons for offering
an online ME-PD Learning Community program is to make this degree available to all
working professionals in Wisconsin, the nation, and even internationally.
Globalization has increased the number of learning opportunities for citizens across the
world. According to Gardner and Baron (2009), higher education in the United States
has been a global business for many years. According to the Institute for International
Education it is typical for US colleges and universities to have over 600,000 foreign
students each year. Many colleges and universities in the US have active international
recruitment programs for both faculty and students.
The traditional UW-La Crosse ME-PD Learning Community program has seen great
success in Wisconsin. One of the major reasons for changing the delivery system of
the program to online is to expand the programs reach nationally and internationally.
Since the basic tenets of the program are based on best practices in education and
closely match 21st Century Skills, it will be a perfect fit at a national and international
level. The key elements of 21st century learning are student outcomes (i.e., Life and
Career Skills; Learning and Innovation Skills; Information, Media, and Technology Skills;
and Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes) and 21st century skills support systems
(i.e., Standards and Assessment; Curriculum and Instruction; and Professional
Development and Learning Environments)
A third reason for the development of an online ME-PD Learning Community program
would be the potential for UW-La Crosse to more fully develop experience and expertise
11
in the on-line learning environment. Our faculty currently uses Desire-to-Learn (D2L) to
deliver content for our program between monthly community meetings. Moving to an
online format will increase the number of highly trained faculty and staff involved in
online education. If approved, the ME-PD Online Learning Community graduate
program would increase the ability of the institution to engage in on-line degree delivery.
Comparison of Face-to-Face and Online Delivery Models
The ME-PD face-to-face learning communities meet once a month on a Saturday and
Sunday during the academic year; the hybrid program meets twice each semester once
at the beginning of the semester and once at the end. The online learning communities
will meet face-to-face for one week (in the U.S.) or two weeks (international) over two
summers. During the three semesters of the program, delivery will be conducted online
through UW-L’s D2L communication system. The curriculum for the program was
specifically developed for online delivery. The online program utilizes the same types of
experiential activities as the face-to-face and hybrid models including small group
projects, discussions, webcasts, audio casts, guest lectures, and other shared
experiences.
6. Discuss the process of advising students in the institute and any changes
since the last APR review.
The two co-facilitating graduate faculty facilitators act as advisors for students in their
learning community. In addition, the program has two Facilitator Development and
Support Specialists who support the graduate faculty facilitators and students. This
process has been in place since the beginning of the program.
7. Discuss any other noteworthy indices of program success.
The program began in 1997 and in that time has graduated over 3,000 students from
over 100 learning communities. A study of principals conducted in 2005, showed that
the program had a positive impact on PK-12 student learning (Hiebert, Bakkum, &
Wagner, 2005). Data clearly displayed a variety of areas in which the learning
community program appeared to influence teachers, their students, their teaching, and
their professional contributions/relationships with parents, administrators, colleagues,
and the school environment. Another study in 2009 demonstrated that learners in the
program had a positive impact on PK-16 student learning (Rabbitt, Hiebert, & Markos,
2009). Many learners described their involvement in the program as transformative.
8. Identify and describe the single most significant strength in the institute's
academic program(s).
The single most significant strength of our academic program is the professional
transformation of our learners in order to improve PK-16 student learning. This is due to
the program’s distinctive learning-in-community philosophy compared to other graduate
degrees in education. The focus of a learning community philosophy is on student
12
learning rather than teaching (DuFour, 2004). We, as a program, believe that every
student can learn. It is our job to determine how best to ensure that students are
learning at their highest ability.
In a study conducted by Rabbitt, Hiebert, and Markos (2009), evidence presented
strongly suggests that a significant number of students in our program have participated
in learning experiences and achieved learning outcomes described as transformative.
The educational practices commonly applied within the ME-PD learning community
program are highly compatible with practices shown to facilitate transformative learning.
It was interesting to note that a significant number of the transformative learning stories
offered by study participants were situated in a community member’s work setting,
suggesting that learning experiences resulted in immediate change of workplace
behavior.
9. Identify and describe the single area most in need of improvement in the
institute's academic program(s). Discuss your plans for accomplishing this
improvement.
The program is 100% self-supporting and runs as a business in the College of Liberal
Studies. As such there is a great need for full autonomy for the program. There are
often roadblocks to developing new curricula, implementing curricular changes, and
developing marketing plans causing delays in the implementation of these programs.
Since we operate as a business, these delays can be costly to our bottom line.
Becoming an institute within the College of Liberal Studies will help us accomplish this
improvement.
IV. Previous Academic Program Review and New Program Initiatives
A. Describe the actions that were taken in response to the recommendations
of the most recent previous Academic Program Review, and the results of
those actions.
The ME-PD Learning Community program is listed as part of the Department of
Education Studies APR Self-Study and Review. Based on feedback from the 2006
review the program made the following changes:



Clearly defined in the Staff and Student handbooks the content off the
Professional Development Plan portfolio and the nature of the capstone action
research project.
Continue monitoring all assessments as they relate to student and program
outcomes.
Developed common assessments for student and program outcomes.
B. Note any continuing or new concerns related to your institute's ability to
achieve its goals.
13


The program is primarily for PK-16 teachers. The current budget and political
climate in the State of Wisconsin has major implications for the program. For
example, potential changes in school district's compensation policies may have
an impact on the market demand for teachers with master’s degrees.
Additionally, State and national level dialogue about minimizing the need for a
master's degree for teachers is a concern. This concern is partially financial and
partially professional. Some people believe that anyone with a bachelor’s degree
can teach with professional development programs (Teach for America
philosophy). The implication is that teacher education programs are not
necessary. We are currently addressing this issue by determining new initiatives
we can implement to meet the needs of teachers and other educational
professionals in Wisconsin, nationally, and internationally.
The program needs to attain autonomy as an institute in order to move forward in
a timely manner in accordance with our strategic plan and to fulfill academic and
financial goals.
B. Identify any program initiatives included in the current university
strategic plan budget document. Report on the status of these initiatives.
The UW-L Strategic Plan describes Suggested Planning Strategies Emerging Through
the Planning Process related to graduate education. The strategies under one indices,
promote undergraduate and graduate academic programs that deliver a complete, wellrounded education, include:




Integrate innovations that promote a range of cognitive processes such as critical
thinking, problem solving, and inquiry based learning.
Increase educational opportunities that emphasize teamwork, the communication
of complex issues and the development of lifelong learning skills.
Examine the array of graduate programs and strengthen select key areas.
Increase opportunities for testing out of introductory level courses.
The ME-PD Learning Community program meets bullet points 1, 2, and 3 of the listed
strategies. The program is based on best practices in teacher education and
incorporates in critical thinking, problem solving, and inquiry based learning. In addition,
the program is based on a constructivist, learning-in-community philosophy that is
based on teamwork, communicating complex issues, and adult learning theory. Last
the program is constantly looking at how to improve through a process of Continuous
Improvement.
D. Describe any plans for new program initiatives.
Ideas for new initiatives include undergraduate certificate and degree programs for
diverse populations, a graduate certificate program in educational administration, an
educational specialist program, and a possible collaborative doctoral program in
educational leadership.
14
E. Comment on any trends in the Unit Data Sheets noteworthy to changes in
the program.
Unit Date Sheets for the Department of Educational Studies have one section relevant
to the ME-PD Learning Community program. The trend we see based on the Unit Data
Sheets is the start of a drop in enrollment for the program for 1998 through 2004.
V. Personnel
The Office of Institutional Research organizes and provides the data on faculty,
instructional academic staff and workload. Additionally, please describe:
A. professional development opportunities and expectations for faculty
members in your institute;
Professional Development is a key component of the ME-PD Learning
Community program. The Professional Development component of the program
consists of ongoing training opportunities we provide both graduate faculty
facilitators and learners. Facilitators receive professional development on a
monthly basis that is organized around our seven curricular strands. Additionally,
facilitators participate in two annual retreats, one in August and one in February,
that occur over a weekend. The intent of the monthly Facilitator Developments
and the two retreats is to allow facilitators opportunities to share new innovations
they are using in their classrooms and to continually build our community of
educators.
B. the relative emphases that your department places on teaching, scholarly
achievements and service when making recommendations regarding
retention and promotion;
The graduate faculty facilitators in the ME-PD Learning Community program
have major responsibility for teaching and service. Facilitators are Instructional
Academic Staff who are master’s or doctoral level teachers or faculty at UW-L.
Their positions are 20% time. The Administrative Team consisting of the
Director, Assistant-to-the Director, and two Facilitator Development and Support
Specialists conduct research for the program. All of the research is looking at the
impact of the ME-PD Learning Community program on student learning. One
such study was conducted with graduate faculty facilitators who implemented a
mini action research project with their community of learners. Qualitative data
indicates that mini action research cycles are effective in determining a variety of
best practices useful in classrooms.
For progression purposes Instructional Academic Staff graduate faculty
facilitators are rated in teaching, scholarship, and teaching. Scholarship often
consists of professional presentations, grants, and articles in educational
15
publications. Non-instructional academic staff and classified staff (Administrative
Team) are evaluated according to UW-L guidelines.
C. the institute staffing plan, including your estimate of the number of
faculty to be hired in the next five years. Describe the procedure the institute
will use to link ongoing curriculum/program development to the recruitment
and hiring of new faculty.
Since the master’s degree is a practitioner based program, the original idea was to
hire a master level teacher and a doctoral level teacher educator as co-facilitators
for each learning community. It was very difficult for faculty to teach their required
workload and add 7 or 8 credits for the learning community program each
semester. The program lost many faculty in the first few years because of these
workload issues. Currently the program has five administrative positions including
the Director, Assistant-to-the-Director, two Facilitator Development Support
Specialists (FDSS), a USA, and 24 facilitators, two with doctoral degrees and two
who are ABD. The Director has a doctoral degree, one FDSS is ABD, and the
other is in an Educational Specialist program. Other facilitators include two
Nationally Board Certified teachers and six certified Professional Development
Plan (PDP) Institution of Higher Education (IHE) representatives.
It is still a goal to pair master level teachers and doctoral level teacher educators.
The Institute of Professional Studies in Education wants to hire doctoral level, fulltime Instructional Academic Staff (IAS) to support and teach in learning
communities. Doctoral level, full-time IAS will be hired instead of tenure-track
faculty because of the unique nature of the staffing pattern for the program and
because it is practitioner based. Since our program is revenue generating, hiring
tenure-track faculty positions could be problematic. While we hope that hiring
doctoral level, full time IAS will offer the program needed stability, there is always
the chance that our revenue will fluctuate making it difficult to maintain this staffing
pattern. The program needs the flexibility given by 1-2 year IAS contracts.
Currently, two co-facilitating IAS teach the entire 30-credit curriculum. Doctoral
level, full-time IAS will have responsibility for at least two learning communities
and will offer research expertise for the other communities. Additionally, what will
set them apart from tenure-track faculty are the entrepreneurial facets of the
program. Responsibilities of doctoral level, full-time IAS would include: 1) delivery
of the core curriculum (an average of 7.5 graduate credits) in a spiraled and
integrated fashion face-to-face and online; 2) serving on action research paper
committees; 3) student advising; and 4) marketing; 5) building collaborative
relationships with school districts; and 6) participation in ongoing professional
development activities. Co-facilitators are located throughout the State of WI and
beyond. With the new online program, this staffing pattern will extend nationally
and internationally.
Support for Achieving Academic Program Goals
16
Describe the impact each of the following has on your ability to achieve program
goals.
A. physical facilities;
The Institute for Professional Studies in Education will be located in Suite 260 of Morris
Hall. The program now has five offices in the suite and another office in 140 Morris
Hall.
B. supplies and equipment;
All funding for equipment and computing services is generated through Special
Programming Pricing tuition and fees. The Institute for Professional Studies in
Education supplies laptop computers for each graduate faculty facilitator. The program
also has several projectors available for learning communities. The Director, Assistantto-the-Director, two Facilitator Development and Support Specialists, and Classified
staff have computers.
C. personnel
All funding for personnel is generated through Special Programming Pricing tuition and
fees. No additional 102 financial resources will be necessary since the academic
program making up the new department is already in existence and 100% selfsupporting.
Since the master’s degree is a practitioner based program, the original idea was to hire
a master level teacher and a doctoral level teacher educator as co-facilitators for each
learning community. It was very difficult for faculty to teach their required workload and
add 7 or 8 credits for the learning community program each semester. The program
lost many faculty in the first few years because of these workload issues. Currently the
program has five administrative positions including the Director, Assistant-to-theDirector, two Facilitator Development Support Specialists (FDSS), a USA, and 24
facilitators, two with doctoral degrees and two who are ABD. The Director has a
doctoral degree, one FDSS is ABD, and the other is in an Educational Specialist
program. Other facilitators include two Nationally Board Certified teachers and six
certified Professional Development Plan (PDP) Institution of Higher Education (IHE)
representatives. (See Attachment A)
It is still a goal to pair master level teachers and doctoral level teacher educators. The
Institute of Professional Studies in Education wants to hire doctoral level, full-time
Instructional Academic Staff (IAS) to support and teach in learning communities.
Doctoral level, full-time IAS will be hired instead of tenure-track faculty because of the
unique nature of the staffing pattern for the program and because it is practitioner
based. Since our program is revenue generating, hiring tenure-track faculty positions
could be problematic. While we hope that hiring doctoral level, full time IAS will offer the
program needed stability, there is always the chance that our revenue will fluctuate
17
making it difficult to maintain this staffing pattern. The program needs the flexibility
given by 1-2 year IAS contracts. Currently, two co-facilitating IAS teach the entire 30credit curriculum. Doctoral level, full-time IAS will have responsibility for at least two
learning communities and will offer research expertise for the other communities.
Additionally, what will set them apart from tenure-track faculty are the entrepreneurial
facets of the program. Responsibilities of doctoral level, full-time IAS would include: 1)
delivery of the core curriculum (an average of 7.5 graduate credits) in a spiraled and
integrated fashion face-to-face and online; 2) serving on action research paper
committees; 3) student advising; and 4) marketing; 5) building collaborative
relationships with school districts; and 6) participation in ongoing professional
development activities. Co-facilitators are located throughout the State of WI and
beyond. With the new online program, this staffing pattern will extend nationally and
internationally.
The Institute of Professional Studies in Education will establish Bylaws, similar to all
other academic programs on campus that specify how the department will govern itself.
The Bylaws within the institute will specify the vision and mission, membership and
voting procedures, faculty and staff responsibilities, meetings, committees and
responsibilities, Progression, and Merit, search and screen procedures, student
responsibilities and rights, and governance including how the chair is appointed.
Progression, and Merit will be specifically defined based on established UW-L
guidelines. Currently, an Annual Evaluation process is already in place for the program.
The Director of the ME-PD Learning Community program conducts annual evaluations
for all Non-Instructional Academic Staff (NIAS), Instructional Academic Staff (IAS), and
Classified Staff. This process will continue and expand to Progression and Merit. The
plan is that voting membership consists of NIAS and IAS with at least a 50%
appointment in the department.
D. external funding.
The program currently has no external funding. The new Institute for Professional
Studies in Education will be actively seeking external funding from the Department of
Education, National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
VI. Appendices
Include copies of:
A. the Unit Data Sheet(s) (provided by the UWL Institutional Research
Office);
B. the budget data sheet (Dean’s Office provides upon request by the
department)
18
C. the most recent previous Academic Program Review Committee report on
the department (provided by the current Academic Program Review
Committee);
D. the Department's Annual Reports from each of the previous three years;
E. assessment biennial reports, plus instruments, surveys, plans, etc.
(particularly those cited in section III of this self study report); and
F. profile of course delivery mode within program (report on % of
courses that are classroom, classroom/laboratory, laboratory, online
[> 50% online course delivery], studio, etc).
19
Appendix A
Academic Program Review Unit Data Sheet
Fall 1998-Fall 2004
20
21
22
23
24
25
Appendix B
ME-PD Learning Community Budget Expenses
2010-2011
26
27
Appendix C
Academic Program Review Committee Report
(Please see separate electronic attachment)
28
Appendix D
Department of Educational Studies Annual
Reports
(Since the Department of Educational Studies Chair position
has been in flux for the past 3 years and the priority of the
department was to meet the DPI Standards, there are no
Annual Reports.)
29
Appendix E
Assessment Biennial reports, Plus
Instruments, Surveys, Plans, Etc.
(particularly those cited in section III of this
self study report)
(Since the Department of Educational Studies Chair position
has been in flux for the past 3 years and the priority of the
department was to meet the DPI Standards, there are no
Annual Reports. Assessment tools for the ME-PD LC
program can be found on pages 6-8 of this report.)
30
Appendix F
Profile of Course Delivery Mode within
Program
(report on % of courses that are classroom,
classroom/laboratory, laboratory, online [>
50% online course delivery], studio, etc).
31
Course Delivery Mode ME-PD Learning Community Program
Traditional
Face-to-Face Program
Hybrid Program
Online Program
% Classroom
% Online
60
40
50
75
50
75
32
Appendix G
Administrative Team and IAS
\
33
ME-PD Learning Community (ME-PD LC) Program Staff
2010-2011 Academic Year
Administrative Team
Sarah Dixen, M.Ed, Educational Specialist (EDS) Candidate
Facilitator Development Support Specialist
Cindy George
ME-PD LC Coordinator
Susan Hughes, M.Ed, ABD
Facilitator, Facilitator Development Support Specialist
Margie Hylkema, ME-PD, ATR
Administrative Specialist, Assistant to the Director
Pat Markos, Ph.D., CRC
Director – ME-PD Learning Community Program
Affiliate Graduate Faculty Facilitators (by Learning Community)
(24 for 2010-2011 Academic Year)
Brodhead
Georges Cravins, Ph.D.
Janet Woodward, ME-PD
Burlington
Brenda Autz, MS – Educational Psychology, Authorized PDP – Institution of Higher
Education (IHE) Assessor
Brian Morstad, M.Ed. – Educational Leadership
Fort Atkinson
Janel Anderson, ME-PD
Bonnie Roscovius, ME-PD
Hudson 2
Ginger Kranz – M.Ed. – Teaching & Learning, AMS Montessori Middle School
Education
Jason Harelson, MA
La Crosse
34
Billie Finco, MS – Counseling, National Board Certification (NBC), Certified in Adaptive
Education & School Guidance, Authorized PDP – Institution of Higher Education (IHE)
Assessor
Lancaster
Holly Hansen, ME-PD
Amy Stoeckly, ME-PD, Reading Specialist Endorsement
Madison
Carla Hacker, MS – Education, Certified Association for Challenge Course Technology
(ACCT)
John Weiland, M.Ed. – Reading Specialist, WI DPI certified Principal. Learning Disability
McFarland 2
Amanda Jacobson, M.Ed., ABD, Authorized PDP – Institution of Higher Education (IHE)
Assessor
Laurie Way, ME-PD
Onalaska 5
Dan Beaman, ME-PD
Stephanie Ritter, ME-PD
Osseo
Tami Hillestad, ME-PD
Rhinelander/Waukesha
Kelly Demerath, MS – Educational Leadership, Policy Analysis, Authorized PDP –
Institution of Higher Education (IHE) Assessor, WI DPI certified Director Curriculum &
Instruction, Principal, Alternative Education
Susie Hughes - M.Ed, ABD
Tomah 3
Shelly Long, ME-PD
Curt Rees, MS – Education Administration, WI DPI certified Principal, Authorized PDP –
Institution of Higher Education (IHE) Assessor
West Salem 4
Saundy Solum, MS – Media Education
Tim Sprain, ME-PD