Criteria for assessment of responsibility #1: leadership and professional growth. 

The candidate:

Attends minimum of two regional, state or national conferences that directly support professional growth in instructional technologies.

Joins a minimum of one professional organization.

Demonstrates acquisition of new technological skills.

Performs relevant committee work for candidate’s organization, or other applicable situation.

Performs mentoring in candidate’s organization.

Demonstrates evidence of activities of candidate’s serving as systematic change agent.

Works towards relevant, on-going certifications.

Submits a paper describing past, present and future trends in instructional technologies and/or ISD. (four to ten pages…10+ annotated citations).

Demonstrates professional collaboration.

Meeting three criteria results in a score of 2…meets minimal standards.
Meeting five criteria results in a score of 3…meets acceptable standards.
Meeting seven criteria results in a score of 4…meets commendable standards.
Meeting eight criteria results in a score of 5…meets exemplary standards.

Criteria for assessment of responsibility #2: design.  (all mandatory)

The candidate:

Demonstrates ability to perform an In-depth audience analysis, describing a unique audience.

Demonstrates ability to perform analysis and documentation of instructional need or opportunity resulting in a student-centered, performance based instructional objective.

Demonstrates ability to perform comprehensive task analysis of instructional objective.

Demonstrates ability to select and integrate into instruction multiple, research-based, instructional strategies.

Demonstrates ability to select appropriate assessment instruments.

Demonstrates ability to interpret results of assessment instruments and use that information to engage stakeholders

Demonstrates ability to use formative evaluations for iterative assessments of components of design process.

Scoring to be supplied.

Criteria for assessment of responsibility #3: development. 

The candidate:

Demonstrates use of a minimum of three different medias to support and/or deliver instruction.  Candidate provides research-based rationale for media selection.*

Candidate’s students produce instructional materials that use two or more medias.

Candidate shows evidence of technical skills acquisition in order to develop multimodal materials.

Candidate provides 4—10 page paper discussing current research in media development, and trends in media effectiveness.  Paper must have at least 10 citations from appropriate sources.

* indicates mandatory criterion

Meeting two criteria results in a score of 2…meets minimal standards.
Meeting three criteria results in a score of 3…meets acceptable standards.
Meeting four criteria results in a score of 4…meets commendable standards.

For a  score of 5 (exemplary), the candidate must show evidence of developing instructional materials that clearly is an exemplary demonstration research supported, student-centered instruction.

Criteria for assessment of responsibility #4: utilization. 

The candidate:

Demonstrates ability to apply research and theory in the selection and utilization of technologies for learning.

Demonstrates ability to apply research and theory in the implementation of strategies for the diffusion, adoption, and dissemination of innovations in learning communities.

Demonstrates ability to Identify and implement strategies to engage stakeholders in the process of diffusion, adoption, and dissemination.

Demonstrates ability to evaluate the effects of diffusion, adoption, and dissemination.

Demonstrates ability to implement effective policies related to the utilization, application, and integration of instructional technologies in a variety of contexts.

Demonstrates ability to identify pertinent barriers to utilization and prescribes appropriate, research-based solutions.

Meeting two criteria results in a score of 2…meets minimal standards.

Meeting three criteria results in a score of 3…meets acceptable standards.

Meeting four criteria results in a score of 4…meets commendable standards.

Meeting five criteria results in a score of 5…meets commendable standards.

Criteria for assessment of responsibility #5: management. 

The candidate:

Demonstrates knowledge, skills, and dispositions to plan, organize, coordinate, and supervise instructional technology by applying principles, theories and research related to project, resources, delivery system, and information management. *

Demonstrates ability to manage projects.  Project managers negotiate, budget, install information monitoring systems, and evaluate progress and improvement.

Demonstrates ability to manage resources. Project managers provide documentation of cost effectiveness and justification of effectiveness or efficiency for learning as well as the resources of personnel, budget, supplies, time, facilities, and instructional resources.

Demonstrates ability to act as a manager who motivates, directs, coaches, supports, monitors performance, delegates, and communicates.
Demonstrates ability to manage delivery systems.  This includes attention to hardware and software requirements, technical support for the users and developers, and process issues such as guidelines for designers, instructors, and support personnel.

* indicates mandatory criterion

Meeting two criteria results in a score of 2…meets minimal standards.
Meeting three criteria results in a score of 3…meets acceptable standards.
Meeting four criteria results in a score of 4…meets commendable standards.
Meeting five criteria results in a score of 5…meets cexemplary standards.

Criteria for assessment of responsibility #6: evaluation. 

The candidate:

Demonstrates ability to use both formative and summative strategies to evaluate the quality of instruction. *

Demonstrates ability to select a variety of appropriate assessment instruments and use those instruments to assess effectiveness of instruction in meeting instructional objectives. *

Can document results from formative evaluations and use those results to revise instructional materials, and/or instructional development process. *

Demonstrates ability to develop and implement a comprehensive needs assessment instrument that shows evidence of primarily an instructional problem or opportunity.

(scoring criteria as yet not specified.)

Criteria for assessment of responsibility #7: research. 

The candidate:

Demonstrates ability to conduct comprehensive literature review and provide summation of a relevant topic in instructional technology.

Identifies two to four trends in instructional technology and identifies relevant sources of information for analyzing those trends.

Can provide insightful analysis of those trends based upon information gathering from relevant sources.

Relates research in instructional technology to professional and/or work-related responsibilities.

Uses research to justify selections of instructional strategies.

Meeting three criteria results in a score of 2…meets minimal standards.
Meeting five criteria results in a score of 3…meets acceptable standards.
Meeting seven criteria results in a score of 4…meets commendable standards.
Meeting eight criteria results in a score of 5…meets exemplary standards.

Criteria for assessment of responsibility #8: collaboration. 

The candidate:

Demonstrates to ability to team electronically with professionals to identify instructional problems or opportunities and devise appropriate solutions.

Identifies trends in distributed instruction.

Demonstrates effective utilization of tools necessary to implement distributed instruction.

Meeting one criterion results in a score of 2…meets minimal standards.

Meeting two criteria results in a score of 3…meets acceptable standards.

Meeting three criteria results in a score of 4…meets commendable standards.

For a score of 5 (exemplary), the candidate must show evidence of using collaboration tools in a means that is clearly an exemplary demonstration of remote collaboration, either by groups of professionals, or of candidate’s students, or both.

UP