Program Information s3

Program Information

Name of Program: / Educational Doctorate (EdD) in Educational Leadership / College: / COE
Prepared By:
(Department Chair/Program Coordinator) / Lorri J. Santamaría / Date: / 27 May 2011
Email Address: / / Extension: / 8520

PART A: Annual Assessment Report AY 10-11 Due by May 27, 2011

Please note: Should you need additional time to analyze data gathered in Spring 2011, please send an email requesting an extension to Jennifer Jeffries ().

Jennfier Jeffiresto

1)  Please describe:
A.  the program student learning outcomes you focused on for assessment this year.
B.  the assessment activities you used to measure student learning in these areas.
C.  the results of your assessment(s).
D.  the significance of your results.
A.  SLOs for the program are:
1.  Demonstrate the ability to apply leadership theories and use leadership skills in the candidate’s unique organizational setting *‘laboratories of practice’. (Specific student learning outcomesare defined within the program coursework.)
2.  Develop and apply research skills in order to address problems of practice within the candidate’s institution.
3.  Evidence of application of the program *‘signature pedagogy’—critical theory/ applied social justice and equity in response to addressing recognized achievement gaps in educational contexts.
4.  Complete a disciplined inquiry into a significant problem of practice by surveying and synthesizing related research, using an appropriate research methodology, engaging in critical analysis of data and articulating defendable conclusions and recommendations.
5.  Completion of written doctoral dissertation *‘Capstone’ based on original research conducted in the workplace including a successful oral defense.
B.  Assessment for measurement of SLO’s include:
1.  Written reflections, in class discussions, and inclusion of workplace as *’laboratories of pratice’ as evidenced by coursework completed in EDLD 770A & B- Leadership Research Practicum.
2.  Written reflections, in class discussions, and inclusion of *‘laboratories of practice’ research sites as evidenced by coursework completed in EDLD 780A & B Advanced Leadership Research Practicum.
3.  Written reflections, in class discussions, and social justice and equity diversity project as evidenced by coursework completed in EDLD 715 Leadership for a Diverse Society and/ or dissertation research focused on the identified *‘signature pedagogy.’
4.  Each qualifying paper and proposal will be read by three or four faculty members. Based on the collective scoring of the papers, students needing added guidance will receive direction and be given the opportunity to revise and re-submit the paper or proposal. Those fulfilling the quality criteria will advance to the next stage of their doctoral program.
5.  Each dissertation *‘Capstone’ will be read by three or four faculty members (Chair and Committee). Based on the collective scoring of the papers, students needing added guidance will receive direction and be given the opportunity to revise and re-submit the paper commiserate with graduation requirements. Dissertations will be defended in the presence of the same faculty members. Those fulfilling the quality criteria will earn their doctoral degree.
C.  Results of the assessments:
1. All students in cohorts 2, 3, 4, and 5 either conduct research in their workplace or
their current or former educational organizational settings (*‘laboratories of
practice’); evidencing successful completion of EDLD 770A & B- Leadership
Research Practicum.
2. All students in cohorts 2, 3, 4, and 5 were successful in their workplace or at
their current or former educational organizational settings (*‘laboratories of
practice’); evidencing successful completion of EDLD 780A & B- Advanced
Leadership Research Practicum.
3. All students in cohorts 2, 3, 4, and 5 were successful in their completion of
coursework in EDLD 715 Leadership for a Diverse Society. Sixty percent of all
dissertation research was focused on the identified *‘signature pedagogy’ —critical
theory/ applied social justice and equity in response to addressing recognized
achievement gaps in educational contexts.
4. All but one student in cohorts 2, 3, 4, and 5 were successful in passing qualifying
papers. There are still 2 students in cohort 5 who need to defend proposals.
5. All students in cohort 2 (8/8) successfully defended their written dissertations
(*Capstone) (all were original studies using the workplace as their laboratory). All
students except for 1 in cohort 3 (19/20) successfully defended their written
dissertations (all were original studies using the workplace as their laboratory). All
students except for 3 in cohort 3 (19/21) successfully defended their written
dissertations (all were original studies using the workplace as their laboratory). The
3 students are expected to defend prior to the end of 2011. Cohort 5 (13) is
expected to defend their dissertation research before May 2012, their projected
graduation date. All of their proposals have been successfully defended.
D.  Significance of results:
These results indicate program success with regard to appropriate and attainable
SLO’s for the EdD program in each of the five areas indicated. When students are not
successful in any area specified, there are supports built into the program in order to
ensure student and candidate success. For example, when students are unable to use
their *‘laboratories of practice’ due to change in employment directors or chairs
accommodate and adjust research goals accordingly to enable completion of research
in a timely manner. Another example is that all students receive feedback on their
qualifying papers and when students do not pass the exam they are supported with
assistance from one or more JDP faculty member with additional scaffolding prior
to papers being resubmitted.
See attached current documents:
·  Syllabus for EDLD 715
·  Educational Leadership Doctoral Qualifying Paper Guidelines and Rubric
·  Ed.D. Guidelines for Proposal Development
*Asterisks indicate SLO components that are aligned with Ed.D. indicators identified by the
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) a national effort aimed at
strengthening the education doctorate, Ed.D. with which we are consortium members and for
which Lorri Santamaría is a Principal Investigator.
2)  As a result of your assessment findings, what changes at either the course- or program-level are being made and/or proposed in order to improve student learning? Please articulate how your assessment findings suggest the need for any proposed changes.
Diversity as a key component of applied social justice and equity in the program and the identified ‘signature pedagogy’ needs to be embedded throughout the program and not isolated to one course. This sentiment has been expressed in student evaluations of EDLD 715. There may be several reasons for this feedback. The most obvious could be:
1.  There are inconsistent instructor/ faculty understandings of applied social justice equity and culturally relevant teaching at the doctoral level.
2.  There is one course that explicitly mentions diversity, social justice and educational equity.
3.  Additional perspectives are needed to substantiate diversity as related to educational leadership.
4.  Individual student reports indicate need for diversity training for EdD faculty.
Changes implemented during the year:
1.  A panel of culturally and linguistically and gender diverse JDP graduates presented content in EDLD 715 demonstrating multiple perspectives.
2.  Having a two-quarter seminar course in the third year focused on the importance of cultural competence in educational leadership.
3.  As a program we significantly increased the emphasis on including social justice and equity implications in qualifying paper exam and in coursework in EDLD 750A, B, and 760A, all core research courses. This helped the instructors focus more on including elements of social justice and equity in JDP coursework.
Changes for next year:
1.  Encourage JDP faculty to attend Safe Zones LGBTQ training sessions offered by the LGBTQ center at CSUSM.
2.  Continue to refine practices implemented this year that ensure a program that is culturally responsive, student centered, and one that is geared toward addressing the achievement gap in K-12 and HE educational contexts.
3)  If you used the resources that were given to you as stated in your plan, please check here.
If you used them differently, please provide specifics.


Syllabus for 715B

California State University San Marcos

College of Education

EDLD 715: Leadership for a Diverse Society

Spring 2010

Instructors: Mark D. Baldwin, Ed.D.

Patricia L. Prado-Olmos, Ph.D.

Office: University Hall 411 and 401

Phone: (760) 750-4311: (760) 750-8535

Office Hours: by appt. before class

E-Mail: ; ;

Class Meeting times/places: See Course Syllabus; CSUSM, University Hall 443

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the College of Education Community is to collaboratively transform public education by preparing thoughtful educators and advancing professional practices. We are committed to diversity, educational equity, and social justice, exemplified through reflective teaching, life-long learning, innovative research, and ongoing service. Our practices demonstrate a commitment to student-centered education, diversity, collaboration, professionalism, and shared governance. (adopted by COE Governance Community October, 1997)

COURSE DESCRIPTION

This course will address theories and practices for achieving schools and classrooms that are informed by and built around the participation of diverse communities and cultures. The emphasis in this course is on how leadership intersects with socio-historical and socio-cultural theories that suggest the organization of schools and instruction is critical to student inclusion and outcomes. A basic premise of this course is that a socially just learning theory begins with using all of the resources and knowledge of families, communities and cultures in formulating policy and practice.

COURSE OBJECTIVES

Students will be able to:

·  Describe how educational leadership is influenced by socio-historical and socio-cultural contexts.

·  Describe their developing identity as an educational leader and researcher in a diverse society.

·  Develop a plan of action for engaging in transformative conversations focused on equity for all in their workplace communities.

·  Link research on issues of social justice with their own research focus.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Writing: In keeping with the All-University Writing Requirement, all courses must have a writing component of at least 2,500 words (approximately 10 pages) which can be administered in a variety of ways. In this course, this requirement is fulfilled through the written assignments.

Appeals: Every student has the right to appeal grades, or appeal for redress of grievances incurred in the context of any course. Disputes may be resolved informally with the professor, or through the formal appeal process. For the latter, consult Dr. Bridget Blanshan, Dean of Students.

Ability: Every student has the right to equitable educational consideration and appropriate accommodation. Students having differing ability (mobility, sight, hearing, documented learning challenges, first language/English as a second language) are requested to contact the professor at the earliest opportunity. Every effort will be made to accommodate special needs. Students are reminded of the availability of Disabled Student Services, the Writing Center, technology assistance in the computer labs, and other student support services available as part of reasonable accommodation for special needs students.

Students withDisabilitiesRequiring Reasonable Accommodations.Students are approvedfor services through the Disabled Student Services Office (DSS). This office is located in Craven Hall 5205, and can be contacted by phone at (760) 750-4905, or TTY (760) 750-4909. Students authorized by DSS to receive reasonable accommodations should meet with their instructor during office hours or, in order to ensure confidentiality, in a more private setting.

CSUSM ACADEMIC HONESTY POLICY

“Students will be expected to adhere to standards of academic honesty and integrity, as outlined in the Student Academic Honesty Policy. All written work and oral assignments must be original work. All ideas/materials that are borrowed from other sources must have appropriate references to the original sources. Any quoted material should give credit to the source and be punctuated with quotation marks.

Students are responsible for honest completion of their work including examinations. There will be no tolerance for infractions. If you believe there has been an infraction by someone in the class, please bring it to the instructor’s attention. The instructor reserves the right to discipline any student for academic dishonesty in accordance with the general rules and regulations of the university. Disciplinary action may include the lowering of grades and/or the assignment of a failing grade for an exam, assignment, or the class as a whole.”

OUR LEARNING COMMUNITY

The following Community Agreements will serve as the foundational principles by which we relate to each other as we learn together. As a community, we can add specifics to these principles as we need.

Community Agreements

·  We speak from our own experience

·  We are open to hearing others

·  We share air time

·  We are willing to have our thinking challenged

·  We respect confidentiality

·  We share experiences that are issue focused, not necessarily who said it or where

E-MAIL & ONLINE DISCUSSION PROTOCOL

Electronic correspondence (e-mail and on-line discussion) is a part of your professional interactions. If you need to contact the instructor or other students, e-mail is often the easiest way to do so. It is our intention to respond to all received e-mails in a timely manner. Please be reminded that e-mail and on-line discussions are a very specific form of communication, with their own form of nuances and meanings. For instance, electronic messages sent with all upper case letters, major typos, or slang, often communicates more than the sender originally intended. With that said, please be mindful of all e-mail and on-line discussion messages you send, to your colleagues, to faculty members in the College of Education, or to persons within the greater educational community. All electronic messages should be crafted with professionalism and care.

Things to consider:

• Would I say in person what this e-mail specifically says?

• How could this e-mail be misconstrued?

• Does this e-mail represent my highest self?

• Am I sending this e-mail to avoid a face-to-face conversation?

In addition, if there is ever a concern with an electronic message sent to you, please talk to that person face-to-face to correct any confusion.

For more guidance see Core Rules of Netiquette at http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html

Discussion Posting (Value Added Model)

When replying to a posting in the discussion area (or through a Web Blog) by another student, instructor, or guest, you must refer to the person by name and refer to their comments within your posting. To Add Value, your response must do one of the following: give an example of what the prior post had described; provide a different perspective of the topic posted; OR expand upon the idea posted in the message by including more detail and depth. The instructor will provide feedback in the first few modules to support understanding of this concept. Peers will also be asked to review how others conform to this aspect of the course discussions.