Merging InTASC, ISTE Educator Standards and Tenure/Promotion Criteria: Increasing Faculty Accountability
Listen and learn : Research paper
Saturday, December 5, 10:15–11:00 am PST (Pacific Standard Time)
Presentation 1 of 3
Unveiling the Truth: Doctoral Students’ Awareness of their Online Information-Seeking Behaviors
Best Practices: Professional Development for Adjunct Faculty in Educational Technology
Dr. Suzanne Becking Dr. Robert Moody
Currently, we don't have any accreditation standards to guide all of our programs. We are proposing that our faculty adopt and integrate InTASC and ISTE Standards for Educators. The researchers presuppose faculty’s instruction will improve, generating more positive feedback from students, which will improve tenure, promotion, and merit evaluations.
|Audience:||Chief technology officers/superintendents/school board members, Teacher education/higher ed faculty, Principals/head teachers|
|Attendee devices:||Devices useful|
|Attendee device specification:||Smartphone: Windows, Android, iOS
Laptop: Chromebook, Mac, PC
Tablet: Android, iOS, Windows
|Participant accounts, software and other materials:||The presenters will use G Suite exclusively but will make all materials available to particiapants regardless of the device they bring.|
|Topic:||Innovation in higher education|
|Grade level:||Community college/university|
|ISTE Standards:||For Educators:
|Additional detail:||Session recorded for video-on-demand|
The purpose of this interactive session is to explain the findings of a year-long case study based on a college of education graduate faculty’s adoption and integration of InTASC (Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Standards) and ISTE Standards for Educators. After a recent review of tenure files and our department’s criteria for tenure, promotion, and merit, it became apparent that our criteria was not relevant nor was it specific enough to provide additional support for our youngest faculty members as they go through the tenure process. We subscribe that being standards-driven will provide a foundation for course development and delivery and a framework for faculty tenure/promotion/merit evaluations in order to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning for faculty in the 18 department programs.
The challenge was to update the criteria based on both sets of standards while closely aligning our criteria based on the works of Penn State’s paper entitled, “Beyond Boyer: The UniSCOPE Model of Scholarship for the 21st Century.” Our goal is very similar their’s: to take a closer look at how we define scholarship of teaching, research, and service and make revisions with the hope that junior faculty members would have a better idea of what to submit as evidence and how to address concerns from the previous year’s tenure review.
UniSCOPE is a multidimensional model that conceptualizes each of the three missions of higher education as a continuum of scholarship. The UniSCOPE model suggests that Boyer’s functions of discovery, integration, application, and education are inherent in the three missions, and views outreach scholarship as an integral component of each. The three types of scholarship, with the media (Blackboard or Google Sites) for delivery and their audiences, constitute a five-dimensional model of scholarship that can provide the foundation of a structure for identifying, recognizing, and rewarding the specific types of scholarship that apply in all disciplines within our department. Because our university has adopted G Suites, we have a variety of free innovative tools at our disposal to collect data, present the data, and seek feedback (peer reviews) from the participants that attend this interactive lecture.
Our presentation will provide a timeline of activities, pointing out successes and failures as we attempt to integrate the aforementioned, get buy-in from the majority of faculty, and collect data to determine if evaluations have improved. The results of our efforts will be revealed during our presentation. At the conclusion, we will seek feedback for improvement from those in attendance.
1. We will greet the audience and introduce ourselves to clarify who we are and our relevant expertise. This will help build an immediate relationship with the audience. We will briefly clarify our expertise and why we are worth listening to. This will help establish our ethos so the audience will trust us more and think we’re credible. (5 minutes)
2. We will provide an introduction of our case study. We will explain the subject and purpose of our presentation while gaining the audience's interest and confidence: 1) introduce our topic; 2) explain our topic area; 3) state the issues/challenges of our case study; 4) state our presentation's purpose; 5) provide a statement of what we're hoping the outcome of the presentation will be; 6) show an outline of the organization of our presentation; 7) explain how long the presentation will be; and 8) explain that we want audience interaction at the conclusion of the presentation. (5 minutes)
3. We will begin the presentation providing our main points with supporting evidence and examples. We will allow some time for note taking as we move from slide to slide. (30 minutes)
4. We will conclude our presentation by: 1) restating the topic and purpose of our presentation; 2) summarising the main points, including their implications and conclusions; and 3) indicate what is next/a call to action/a thought-provoking takeaway. (5 minutes)
Ascione, L. (2019, June 17). Higher-ed tech adoption is surprisingly stressful for faculty. Retrieved from
CCSSO. (2013, April). The InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards. Retrieved from
Cunningham, W. G., & Cordeiro, P. A. (2013). Educational leadership: A bridge to improved practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hymna, D. E., Gurgevich, T., Ayers, J., Cash, D., & Fahnline, et al. (2002). Beyond Boyer: The UniSCOPE model of scholarship for the 21st century. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 7, 41-65. Retrieved from http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/view/214
ISTE.org. (2017, June). ISTE Standards for Educators. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators
Juliani, A. J. (2018, October 15). What schools can learn from Netflix's culture (and values). Retrieved from
Kowalski, T. J. (2011). Who should create the school's vision? In Case studies on educational administration (6th ed., pp. 7-14). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
LI, Y., Garza, V., Keicher, A., & Popov, V. (2018, 28). Predicting high school teacher use of technology: Pedagogical beliefs, technological beliefs and attitudes, and teacher training. Retrieved from
Maslyk, J. (2019). Connect to lead: Power up your learning network to move your school forward. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).
Muñiz, J. (2019, March 28). Culturally responsive teaching: A 50-state survey of teaching standards. Retrieved from https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/culturally-responsive-teaching/
Okojie, M., Olinzock, A. A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. C. (2016). The pedagogy of technology integration. Retrieved from https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v32/v32n2/okojie.html
USDE.org. (2017, January). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 National Education
Technology Plan update. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17