Report of the Academic Program Review Committee for The

Approved by CAP, May 20, 2008

Report of the Academic Program Review Committee for the Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education Review Period FY2005 – FY2007 Final Version (May 15, 2008)

APRC Review Subcommittee: Siva Nathan (Chair), Michael Eriksen, Xiaochung He

I. Department Profile for FY2005-FY2007

The Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education (EPSE) is a combination of the former department of Special Education and the program in Educational Psychology of the former department of Educational Foundations. The merger resulted from a reorganization of the College of Education in 1993- 94. Over the last fifteen years the department has primarily focused on master’s and doctoral degree programs.

All EPSE faculty were actively involved in the development of the Academic program review (APR) report. The members of the External Review team were faculty members from the University of Florida, New Mexico State University, and Northern Illinois University. Comparison departments used for the self study were the University of Oklahoma as a peer institution, and the Pennsylvania State University as an aspiring institution.

Faculty and Staff As of Fall 2007, the complement of department faculty is 27.1 Fifteen faculty are tenured (7 professors and 8 associate professors) and four assistant professors are on the tenure-track. The faculty is comprised of 22 women (81%) and 5 men. The number of tenure track minority faculty increased from two in 2005 to three in 2007. As of Fall 2007 the department has 20 tenure track lines. This number has remained fairly stable during this period (2005 – 21, 2006 – 22, 2007 – 19).

EPSE has five staff members: Business Manager, Administrative Coordinator, Administrative Secretary, Administrative Assistant, and Staff Assistant. There is also an Administrative Secretary in the Speech Hearing Clinic.

Average Enrollment by Level and Faculty Type

Over the three year period the total credit hours generated per year averaged 12,425. There has been a small decline in credit hours over the three years. This is largely due to a decline in undergraduate credit hours and the elimination of the Ed.S. program. These declines have been counterbalanced by the steady increase in M.Ed. and Ph.D credit hours. Credit hour generation by level appears in the following table, averaged over the three-year period and with FY2005 and FY2007 hours:

1 One faculty member serves 80% as the Associate Vice President for Research at the university level. So in effect the department has 26.2 full-time equivalent faculty. 1 Three-year Average Credit hours (FY2005 hours: FY2007 hours) Faculty Type Undergrad Core Undergrad Undergrad Graduate Lower Div. Upper Div.

Tenure-track 737 (1269:456) 391 (609:255) 3752 (3541:4132)

Non tenure-track 725 (141:903) 935 (970:648) 1086 (708:1589)

PTI 653 (1041:435) 970 (1467:357) 843 (876: 732)

GTA and Other 42 (0:0) 1150 (930:1362) 117 (0:138) 1024 (1108:1047)

Average total 42 3265 2413 6705

Percent of total 3% 25% 18% 54%

There is a steady credit hour production in the undergraduate lower division due to two “service” courses taught by the department (EPY 2050, EXC 2010). Though these courses were recently phased out by the Board of Regents, they were replaced by similar courses and the department anticipates steadily increasing enrollment. The undergraduate upper division credit hours were generated by a series of cohorts conducted with specific local school districts where from 20 to 60 students were provided coursework for teacher certification. These agreements are coming to an end.

Over the three year review period tenure-track faculty generated an average of 4880 credit hours. There was a decline of 576 hours from FY2005 to FY2007 for three reasons: 1) increased number of course buy-outs due to increasing number of funded projects, 2) the COE move to a course-load policy that recognizes research active tenured and tenure-track faculty of whom almost all faculty in EPSE are, and 3) four tenured/tenure-track faculty positions were filled at various points. The rise in credit hours by non-tenure track faculty is due to 1) hiring an additional clinical instructor, 2) replacing a clinical instructor, and 3) funding two doctoral students as temporary clinical instructors. Within the analysis of these credit hours there is a decrease in hours generated by PTIs from 3384 in FY2005 to 1524 in FY2007. The department has moved from using 32 to 23 PTIs in a year.

Scholarly and Creative Productivity and External Funding

Scholarly and Creative Productivity FY 2005 thru FY2007 Refereed Articles Non – Refereed Books Book Conf. Articles Chapters Presentations

Unduplicated By author

Total 94 111 18 7 54 183

Per Year 33 37 6 2.3 18 61

Per 1.72 2.0 0.33 0.13 0.99 3.4 faculty per year

2 The faculty at Oklahoma (peer) published 2.4 refereed articles and books (by author) per faculty member per year and gave an average of 3.8 national presentations each per year. Faculty at Penn State (aspiring) published an average of 2.3 peer reviewed journal articles (by author) per faculty per year and 0.30 books per year. No data is provided on Penn State faculty’s conference presentations.

Over the period of the self-study 14 members of the faculty generated external funds from organizations such as the National Institutes of Health (NICHD and NIDCD), National Institute of Education Sciences, National Institute for Literacy, U.S. Department of Education, Georgia Department of Education, Georgia Department of Human Resources, and local school systems. These funds have totaled $1,951,953 for 2005; $3,618,692 for 2006; and $2,758,149 for 2007. Another faculty member secured internal funds for a total of 15 (out of 19), or almost 80% of the tenure/tenure track faculty, having funding. Internal funds have totaled $16,919 for 2005, $34,988 for 2006, and $34,874 for 2007.

Faculty Service Faculty members in the department are active members of all committees at the College and University Senate levels. EPSE faculty are members of numerous professional organizations and have taken leadership roles in about a dozen of these organizations. Faculty members have been invited to serve as editors and on the editorial review boards of approximately 20 national journals. Members of the faculty have been invited to review grant proposals for GSU Internal Grants Programs, and several state and federal funding agencies. As part of their contribution to the educational communities of Atlanta and the state of Georgia, members of the faculty have provided numerous workshops, training activities, and consultancies during the period of this review. Members of the faculty have been served on the Boards of several local community organizations.

Noteworthy Departmental Features EPSE is performing at levels commensurate or exceeding peer (University of Oklahoma) and aspiring (Pennsylvania State University; ranked 14th in Educational Psychology and 15th in Special Education in the 2007 U. S. News and World Report) departments across the areas of instruction, research, and service.

EPSE 1) generates more credit hours of instruction per faculty member and 2) generates more external funding per faculty member than comparison departments, and 3) is on par in scholarly publications per faculty member with comparison departments. EPSE faculty members also participate in pivotal leadership roles in the College of Education (COE), Georgia State University (GSU), and state and national organizations.

Degree Programs

The department awards four master’s degrees – the M.Ed. in Behavior Learning Disabilities, Communication Disorders, and Multiple Severe Disabilities and the M.S. in Educational Psychology. The department awards two doctoral degrees: a Ph.D. in Exceptional Students and a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology. The following table shows the number of majors and the number of degrees by year and on average:

3 Majors and Degrees by Year and Averaged Degree 2005 2006 2007 3 Year Avg.

Majors Degrees Majors Degrees Majors Degrees Majors Degrees

M.S. – EPY 44 7 41 9 33 12 40 9

M. Ed. – CD 48 17 50 12 51 12 50 14

M.Ed. – BLD 101 30 67 26 45 20 71 26

M.Ed. - MSD 105 22 119 28 114 49 113 33

Ph.D. - EPY 29 4 30 0 33 5 31 3

Ph.D. - EXC 25 4 30 5 32 1 29 3

In addition to degree programs, EPSE offers non-degree programs in which students who already have a bachelors degree enroll for certification-only in the various teacher certification categories in special education. The BLD non-degree program has a three year average enrollment of 93 students with 70 completers. The MSD non-degree program has a three year average enrollment of 28 with 10 completers. Additionally, there are 28 students in the Department of Early Childhood Education who started a dual certification special education program in Fall 2006; EPSE is responsible for teaching four of the courses and supervising two of the practicum experiences. Additionally, EPSE offers certification only programs in special education at a post-baccalaureate level and in 2006, began a new dual certification program in special education/early childhood for undergraduates in the Early Childhood Department.

Quality of Students by Degree Program

Input Variables:

All master’s programs have a minimum GPA requirement of 2.75. The three master’s degrees in special education require a combined GRE score of 850 with 400 minimums on each section. The master’s degree in educational psychology requires a combined GRE score of 900 with a minimum of 400 on each section. EPY and EXC Ph.D. programs require 1000 minimum combined GRE scores, a 3.3 cumulative GPA, successful completion of a personal interview and a writing sample.

Input quality measures for enrolled students in each degree program by year appear in the following table:

4 Enrolled Students’ Average Graduate Admission Test Scores, Number and Percent Accepted Degree Program GRE Total # Accepted % Accepted 2005 1039 25 62.5% M.S.- EPY 2006 1117 17 54.8%

2007 1063 13 44.8%

2005 1023 33 32.7%

M.Ed. - CD 2006 1073 28 26.7%

2007 1087 32 27.4%

2005 1049 36 57.8%

M.Ed. - BLD 2006 964 19 44.9%

2007 989 17 26.7%

2005 931 68 74.5%

M.Ed. - MSD 2006 950 58 86.0%

2007 952 50 83.2%

2005 1045 2 18.2%

Ph.D. - EPY 2006 1106 9 52.9%

2007 985 4 25.0%

2005 1030 7 19.4%

Ph.D. - EXC 2006 1042 10 47.6%

2007 1103 10 37.0%

All non-degree initial certification programs require an undergraduate degree from an accredited college or university with a minimum 2.5 GPA. Additionally, applicants must receive a passing score on the PRAXIS I or GACE Basic Skills examination or have the following exemption minimums: (a) SAT verbal + math score of 1000, (b) ACT English + Math score of 43, or (c) GRE verbal + quantitative score of 1030.

Evidence of student learning:

The MS in Educational Psychology has four program learning outcomes: 1) displays expertise with major concepts; 2) applies research methods; 3) values underpinning educational psychology; 4) participates in scholarly activities. The four objectives are assessed through three measures: - the comprehensive examination, coursework in research design, and coursework in social foundations of education. All learning outcomes were attained by MS in EPY students during the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 academic years. The department has had a 100% successful completion on both the written and oral components of 5 the comprehensive examination for the students in this program. To improve learning outcomes the department is now providing orientation to MS students where they meet the EPY faculty and learn of faculty research interests and projects.

The master’s degree in Behavior and Learning Disorders (BLD) has five learning outcomes: 1) commit to student learning and development; 2) apply expertise for learning and development; 3) manage and monitor student learning/development; 4) reflect on and learn from professional experience, and 5) participate in the profession’s learning communities. The BLD program uses multiple sources of data to evaluate student progress and program quality. These include the following: 1) ratings on such items as lesson planning, analyzing P-12 pupil outcomes, and classroom performance data through the use of observation instruments, rubrics and rating scales; 2) collection of graduate GPA at midpoint and exit as an indicator of knowledge acquisition; 3) comprehensive examination, and 4) performance on the state certification exam. All target levels for each of the indicators were achieved by 85% of the students. To improve learning outcomes, the major change to the BLD program was in response to the “No Child Left Behind” which requires that every teacher be highly qualified in the content areas being taught. The program was modified to include the course work required to earn a reading endorsement, so that all program completers would be highly qualified in the area of reading, as well as being skilled in special education pedagogy.

The master’s degree in Communication Disorders (CD) has 14 learning objectives. These include: applying prerequisite knowledge, discussing communication and swallowing disorders, demonstrating clinical skills-intervention, and understanding linguistic and cultural diversity. Learning outcomes for this program are based on the professional standards established by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). The CD program uses a portfolio to monitor student attainment of established learning outcomes. All students must complete a minimum of 475 hours in clinical experiences. Finally, all students must pass the PRAXIS II exam. The program has a 100% pass rate on Praxis II. To improve learning outcomes, the CD program has begun offering thesis hours to its graduate students and had begun requiring prevention hours during the students’ clinical experiences.

The master’s degree in Multiple and Severe Disabilities (MSD) has 10 learning outcomes. These include: understanding student development regarding learning, motivating and managing students for learning and involving school and community in learning. The MSD program uses multiple sources of data to evaluate student progress and program quality. These are very similar to those of the BLD program listed above. Evaluation of assessment data shows that this program exceeded the target level in all ten learning outcomes. To improve learning outcomes, each of the areas in the MSD program changed its coursework to meet the federal legislation requirements of “highly qualified.”

The doctoral program in Educational Psychology has six learning objectives: 1) exhibits expertise with concepts; 2) understands and applies research methods; 3) demonstrates competence in teaching; 4) communicates professionally; 5) values underpinning educational psychology; 6) participates in scholarly activities. All six learning outcomes were measured in annual evaluation using various measures including academic progress, professional growth, dissertation proposal, etc. To improve student learning outcomes three recent changes were made: graduate student orientation, doctoral fellowships, and seminars for graduate research assistants.

The doctoral program in the Education of Students with Exceptionalities has three major learning objectives: 1) develop expertise in research skills; 2) develop expertise teaching in higher education; 3) engage in professional development. Assessment evidence includes evidence of submitted data-based articles, compiled evidence of teaching experiences and teaching competency, and the Doctoral Indicator Survey. Assessment data indicate that students are meeting residency requirements and making

6 appropriate progress. Students in this program met, and in most cases, exceeded the target levels. For example, many students submitted (and published) more than the one required article (range 1- 4). To improve learning outcomes the department formalized the course sequence leading to competency in university teaching. Additionally a required course in qualitative research methodology was added.

Additional outcomes measures:

Surveys were sent to students, faculty and alumni to evaluate the quality of the department’s degree programs. In summary all three groups provided favorable responses to curriculum quality. All means were commensurate with or higher than those reported for University means. For example, on the question addressed to graduate students as to whether the department’s program is academically challenging the department’s mean was 4.43 compared to a university mean of 4.16 (1 = strongly disagree ; 5 = strongly agree). These quantitative data are supported by positive comments from the respondents. Further, both current graduate students and alumni reported that their students and/or clients benefited directly from their taking EPSE courses at GSU. Survey responses indicate that students and alumni are satisfied with program quality but have concerns about the level of perceived support and access to faculty. When data are disaggregated, it appears that initial certification students are most troubled by this issue, particularly in the BLD program.

Data about job placement, scholarly activity, and teaching of graduates of the doctoral programs indicated that doctoral graduates were performing at a high level and were extremely successful in terms of conference presentations, peer- reviewed journal articles, book chapters, grants, and placement of graduates in colleges and universities, state agencies, grant agencies, local school systems and acceptance into a post-doctoral program. For example, 3 of the 10 doctoral student respondents in the EPY program and 10 of the 25 respondents in the EXC program indicated that they had published at least one peer- reviewed journal article.

Assessment

We generally concur with the views expressed by the External Reviewers that the work of the faculty in the Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education has been quite impressive. The faculty is very productive with respect to their scholarship, teaching and program development, and service. Areas of focus are beginning to emerge within the department that will be important for funding opportunities and program/department visibility. Language and literacy, school-wide discipline and safety and juvenile justice are three focal areas that appear to be closely aligned with the urban mission of the university and research interests of faculty. The department is positioned to pursue large scale funding and the development of identified research centers. The issues that face the department at this point seem to be largely related to changes that are occurring in the University, as Georgia State University moves toward becoming a top flight research institution and documenting improvements in student learning outcomes. EPSE has made strong progress since its last APR report in 1999. Almost all the goals were met, with the exception of several that were no longer applicable and one which remains a current challenge.

1. Academic Quality

Instruction:

The quality of instruction across non-degree and degree programs has led to good student achievement as evidenced by multiple external measures related to program assessment plans. EPSE programs are accredited by the appropriate accrediting bodies.

7 The department provides no evidence of linking learning outcomes with measures in a manner that can be tracked temporally. There is no information as to whether there is continuous improvement over time in student learning outcomes.

The self study commented that the department is facing obstacles in delivering course content. These problems include inability of faculty to access class materials from on- and off-campus sites, insufficient on-line resources for instruction, and no technical support after business hours. In addition, the department is having difficulty keeping its website up-to-date.

The large number of doctoral students within the EPSE programs and the number of students who are drawn from and stay in the greater Atlanta area has limited the development of graduates who are competitive in the Research I institution job market. This limited placement of doctoral students has in turn limited the visibility and national reputation of the department.

The department as a whole has a nice balance of junior and senior faculty members. Some programs, however, are junior faculty heavy and as such are more susceptible to departmental changes and university demands. For example, the BLD program is largely comprised of junior faculty members within a program that has historically produced a large number of credit hours each semester. The move of a BLD faculty member with expertise in autism to the MSD program half time, would strengthen the latter program, but this leaves insufficient faculty to meet the needs of the large number of students in the BLD program.

Faculty resources seem to be insufficient for the joint programs with the Department of Early Childhood Education.

Research:

The quantity of research generated by EPSE faculty is quite impressive and is on par with its comparative peer and aspiring institutions. All members of the tenure-track faculty are active in research, have published in refereed journals and have obtained external and internal grants. Since data on external research dollars are not adjusted for faculty size, no meaningful comparison with the peer institution and the aspiring institution can be made.

The self study states that “journal articles have appeared in some of the most respected and highly cited journals in each field.” However, no data is presented in support of this statement. Thus, we are unable to assess the quality of the refereed publications and their national impact. In addition, the external reviewers commented that there is significant variation in research productivity across programs.

The current volume of grant activity within the department and associated day-to-day requirements appear to be taxing the current support infrastructure. Physical space is a chronic institutional concern that will be a major factor in future program development and grant support within the EPSE department.

Infrastructure limitations of administrative support, availability of statistical software, and advanced technological supports are beginning to have a limiting effect on the department’s ability to expand research efforts. While the EPSE department is held in high regard in Georgia, it lacks national visibility. Lack of strategic marketing as well as infrastructure issues remain challenges that need to be addressed.

Service:

8 The quality and quantity of service provided by EPSE to the community at-large meets the needs of a diverse population across ages, abilities, and activities. Faculty members are prominent in their service involvement at the college and university levels, national professional organizations, as journal editors, grant proposal reviewers, and performing service in local community organizations.

2. Centrality

EPSE is central to the mission of an urban institution like GSU and to the COE. The mission of GSU is to develop, transmit, and utilize knowledge that is responsive to the urban environment and diverse students, creating leaders and global citizens. The mission of the COE is to provide leadership and scholarship for the betterment of education and human development. The programs in EPSE align with both the COE and GSU missions and further support them in the context of specializations in education and development.

3. Viability

The programs in EPSE are also viable. Viability is measured with respect to enrollments and graduates. EPSE programs have had steady enrollments and number of graduates. Graduating students have found employment in the private and public sectors. Due to a large number of part-time students in its doctoral programs, the number of doctoral graduates per year has been low.

4. Strategic focus

EPSE’s recommended goals and objectives are aligned with the strategic focus of GSU and the COE to become one of the nation’s premier research universities located in an urban setting. EPSE’s goals and objectives are aligned with the university’s goals on interdisciplinary programs, programs that meet emerging needs, individual student learning styles, development of a dynamic intellectual environment that stimulates scholarly activity, development of graduate and research programs with national recognition and providing service activities to local, state and federal entities.

The historic need to provide a range of programs to a wide variety of audiences has to some extent resulted in a “generalist approach” within the EPSE Department. While this is helpful in meeting the multiple demands of students and stakeholders, it is most likely detrimental to departmental visibility and the development of a national reputation for particular expertise.

5. Progress on strategic goals and objectives

In summary, EPSE has made strong progress since the last APR report in 1999. Almost all the goals were met, with the exception of several that were no longer applicable and one which remains a current challenge, infrastructure support for research efforts. The goals that were met include: reviewing and revising all mission statements, adding a clinical instructor for the MSD program, and reducing the number of programs and students in EPSE. The department was unable to obtain a staff position to support grant proposals. Another challenge is office space, particularly for data storage and Graduate Research Assistants. There are also extensive concerns over technological resources, particularly in the area of instruction.

Regarding future goals outlined in the last APR report, EPSE has met the following: assessing the effectiveness of the technology experiments in the BLD programs, converting to a single interrelated major in BLD, increasing faculty involvement in the Communication Disorder programs, instituting a master’s thesis option in the Special Education programs.

9 6. Evaluation of the program’s goals and objectives

The department has listed the following priorities:

Priority 1: Program modifications in Autism, Birth to Five, BLD and dual Early Childhood/Special Education programs. These would include hiring of additional tenure track faculty members in these areas. This is a critical priority for the future success of the department.

Priority 2: Improving instructional technology support. This is an important priority.

Priority 3: Hiring a grants manager. This is an extremely critical priority for the department to meet its research goals. Faculty will be unable to manage additional grants without this support.

Priority 4: Increasing the national visibility of the department in research and instruction. This is critical for the department and is aligned with the mission of the university.

Priority 5: Improve the recruitment and quality of doctoral students and provide support to faculty related to statistical designs and analyses. These are very important priorities to increase the national visibility of the department.

Priority 6: Increase Undergraduate Outreach. This is consistent with meeting the teacher shortage, and the needs of the university and the community.

Priority 7: Search for funding to hire a Distinguished Professor. Such a hire will bring visibility to the department.

Priority 8: Increase the synergy between service and scholarship. The Department wishes to place increased emphasis on engaged scholarship and reward service that results in scholarly work. Many research universities are placing increasing emphasis on this aspect of scholarship.

10 Recommendations

We commend the Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education (EPSE) for their impressive achievements in instruction, research and service, and the steps taken to continuously improve their programs. We agree with the following priorities of the department:

1. EPSE needs to obtain funding to hire a full-time grants manager to support the large and increasing quantity of grants in the department. Efforts to expand the number of grants and thus attain national research visibility will be hindered without additional staff support to administer grants.

2. The quality of students admitted to the doctoral programs needs to be raised. We would suggest that department faculty examine program admission requirements and support packages to ensure that higher quality doctoral students are admitted.

3. The department needs to obtain funding to hire additional tenure track faculty in the following three programs: 1) BLD; 2) Birth-through-five , and 3) dual Early Childhood/Special Education. Currently the ratio of students-to-faculty in these areas is extremely high, and the faculty in these three programs are overburdened. The BLD program is in need of a senior faculty member, so the hire should be focused at the full professor level. Hiring a full time faculty member in BLD, will enable the faculty member who is currently half-time in BLD and half-time in Autism to move full-time to Autism.

4. The department needs to provide increased technological resources and training, particularly in the area of instruction.

In addition, the committee makes the following recommendations: 1. The department needs to develop and implement ways to improve its assessment of learning outcomes to link and enable continuous improvements in learning.

2. To meet its goal of increasing the quality of its doctoral programs, the department needs to place more doctoral graduates in Research I institutions. The department needs to admit a larger proportion of doctoral students who are full-time, who aspire to work in academic research settings and have a high likelihood of obtaining jobs in these settings.

3. Taking a generalist approach is detrimental to departmental visibility and the development of a national reputation for a particular expertise. The department needs to decide which areas to focus on that will increase the chances of funding opportunities and program/department national visibility. The external reviewers suggest language and literacy, school-wide discipline and safety, and juvenile justice and the APR committee supports this.

4. We concur with the external reviewers’ assessment that some programs within the department are more productive than others in terms of research productivity. This should be monitored as a trend and as a guide for the allocation of departmental resources.

5. The department needs to obtain more office space particularly for data storage and GRAs.