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 21st
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
2. Collection and
Development Policy
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.
3. Facilities Plan
Assignment
It has been suggested that more differentiation occur in the scoring of group
work.
4. Practicum
Evaluation
No changes are recommended based on the analysis of data.
5. Unit of Instruction:
Modified ISD/Pebbles
Project
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.
6. Information
Literacy Model
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.
7. Literature Project:
Text Set
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
1. Digital Portfolio
(Assessment #1)
Actions
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
2. Collection and
Development Policy
(Assessment #2)
3. Facilities Plan
Assignment
(assessment #3)
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.
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.
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.
4. Practicum
Evaluation
5. Unit of Instruction:
Modified ISD/Pebbles
Project
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
6. Information
Literacy Model
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.
7. Literature Project:
Text Set
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
An assessment instrument is in the process of being developed. Formative
Assignment/LOC Field assessment and revision of the instrument will continue through 2012 based on
Trip
data findings from the administration of the instrument through 2012.
(assessment #8)
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.
2. What significant findings emerge from your examination of these data?
Key Assessment
1. Digital Portfolio
2. Collection and Development
Policy
3. Facilities Plan Assignment
4. Practicum Evaluation
5. Unit of Instruction: Modified
ISD/Pebbles Project
Significant Findings
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.
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 20122013.
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 the assessment.
Key Assessment
6. Information Literacy Model
7. Literature Project: Text Set
8. MARC Assignment/LOC Field
Trip
Significant 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 State Curriculum, and local school
systems curriculum which are in the process of realignment with the
Common Core curriculum.
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).
In one implementation of the Part I of the assessment 6/6 (100%) of
the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.
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.
3. How have you involved faculty in your identification of the implications of these data?
School library media formally faculty members 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)
Key Assessment
1. Digital
Portfolio
Significant Findings
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
Actions
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
categories. There were no specific
areas of concern noted.
2. Collection and
Development
Policy
3. Facilities Plan
Assignment
5. Unit of
Instruction:
Modified
ISD/Pebbles
Project
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.
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.
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
academic semester, and summative
assessment will occur at the end of each
respective semester.
Instructional guidance in APA Style will
support the existing APA Style instruction
designed for the course.
With a greater sample size, more
differentiation in rubric scores will be
anticipated.
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.
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.
6. Information
Literacy Model
8. MARC
Assignment/LOC
Field Trip
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.
In one implementation of the Part I of
the assessment 6/6 (100%) of the
candidates earned scores in the
acceptable or target ranges.
In one implementations of the Part II
of the assessment 6/6 (100%) of the
candidates earned scores in the
acceptable or target ranges.
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.
This was the last implementation of
this assessment which has been
replaced by a new assessment #8
titled, Pathfinder.
With a greater sample size, more
differentiation in rubric scores will be
anticipated.
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
There were no specific areas of concern noted with this assessment, and no
subsequent changes or recommendations were initiated.
(Assessment #1)
2. Collection and
Development Policy
2011-12 Data Findings: In two implementations of the assessment 22/23 (96%)
of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.
(Assessment #2)
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.
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.
3. Facilities Plan
Assignment
2011-12 Data Findings: In one implementations of the assessment 5/5 (100%)
of the candidates earned scores in the acceptable or target ranges.
(assessment #3)
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.
4. Practicum
Evaluation
There were no specific areas of concern noted with this assessment, and no
subsequent changes or recommendations were initiated.
(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.
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 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.
6. Information
Literacy Model
(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.
7. Literature Project:
Text Set
There were no specific areas of concern noted with this assessment, and no
subsequent changes or recommendations were initiated.
(assessment #7)
8. MARC
Assignment/LOC Field
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.
Trip
(assessment #8)
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.
Changes in Response to Data: The new Pathfinder assessment was
administered for the first time in the spring 2013.
2.
What significant findings emerge from your examination of these data?
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.
3.
How have you involved faculty in your identification of the implications of these
data?
School library media formally faculty members 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)
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
increased the amount of writing (from 13 to 20
standards-based reflections) candidates must
complete for their Digital Portfolio.
Candidates will be provided the option of
combining respective sub-standards into one piece
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
The criterion will be removed from the assessment
labeled relocation and moving plans. This criterion
is generally not under the purview of the local
school library media specialist.
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).