AECT Association for Educational Communications and Technology
   Click on the future of learning...
  1. What is the history of the field?
  2. What is the knowledge base?
  3. What is the history of AECT's partnership with NCATE?
  4. How are the 2000 performance-based standards different from the previous guidelines?
  5. Is my program an ECIT program?
  6. Is my program initial or advanced?
  7. What are the initial standards?
  8. What are the advanced standards?
  9. What are the components of a Program Report?
  10. What are the critical aspects of an Assessment Plan?
  11. What are some types of data to include?
  12. Why should we be interested in National Recognition?
  13. What are common weaknesses in Program Reports?
  14. How is AECT responsible for ECIT program review?
  15. How does the program review process work once I submit a program report?
  16. How do I know whether my state has a review partnership with NCATE?
  17. What are the expectations for program reviewers?
  18. Who are my contacts at AECT?
  19. Which programs currently have National Recognition?
  20. What do I do if I have a school library media specialist program?

17. What are the expectations for program reviewers as they review Program Reports?

The program review rubrics are meant to provide a framework within which the Program Reviewer evaluates the program based on an analysis and judgment of the evidence presented in the Program Report. The evaluation form provides a summary of the Program Reviewer's evaluation and a summative recommendation for National Recognition or No National Recognition. Program Reviewers will consider both the Context Statement and the Performance Evidence (see Chapter IV) when completing the rubrics. The rubrics are also intended to serve as a guide for programs to consider what level of performance they might expect in each of the Standards. The rubrics are not intended to be used as a scoring system by programs or by AECT Program Reviewers. For additional information, see the section titled, "Instructions for Reviewers."

The program review rubrics include general descriptions of what is expected at each of three levels of candidate performance: "Target" (exceptional performance in this standard, beyond what one would typically expect); "Acceptable" (entirely satisfactory performance from well-prepared candidates); and "Unacceptable" (inadequate performance from ECIT candidates, well below what one would expect). General descriptions are different for the Initial and Advanced program rubrics so as to align directly with the performance-based standards detailed in Chapters II and III.

Review of State Partnership Proposals

For those states that seek AECT/ECIT approval of their independent standards to serve as the basis of review for ECIT programs during a state review process, Program Reviewers have a different responsibility. When submitting a State Partnership Proposal, states that select an option which does not use the AECT/ECIT program review process should address the State Partnership Principles and Recommended Practices that are detailed in the AECT Program Standards document. In these cases, the responsibility of the Program Reviewer is to determine if there is adequate alignment between the State Standards and the ECIT Performance-Based Standards to recommend that these may serve as the basis for ECIT program review in lieu of the AECT/ECIT Performance-Based Standards. The process associated with state partnership program reviews is governed by NCATE and the NCATE Specialty Areas Studies Board.

Instructions for Reviewers

As program reviewers analyze institutional program reports it is important to always keep in mind the purposes of the program review process:

  1. To improve the quality and integrity of professionals in ECIT fields through the improvement of ECIT programs and,
  2. To hold institutions accountable for meeting the NCATE/AECT performance-based standards which provide a level of voluntary quality control for the preparation of ECIT professionals.

In their totality, the 2000 NCATE/AECT performance-based Standards along with the candidate performance indicators can be seen as describing an ideal situation which few, if any, programs will be able to meet at the present time. The Standards should be viewed as an attainable goal and one which programs should strive to attain. It is the process and plans for change that we will analyze as well as documentation of candidate performance. Program reviewers should be looking for plans and strategies for program improvement, not necessarily evidence that the change has already occurred. Some of this kind of change and the data necessary to document such change may take years to evidence. Program reviewers should look for progress toward achievement of the Standards. Program reviewers are expected to provide guidance and feedback to programs as you complete a program review. Program Reviewers must write reports that clearly explain areas of non-compliance and provide sufficient explanation so that the program will know how to achieve compliance with the Standards.

Begin by reading the Program Report in its entirety Conduct the review as a "gotcha" activity
Consider each Standard individually in making a judgment about whether that Standard is Met or Not Met Use the indicators as a checklist to determine if a Standard is Met or Not Met
Use a holistic view of the program in making a judgment about whether to recommend for National Recognition Use the rubrics and evaluation forms as a checklist to recommend or not recommend National Recognition
Expect that most programs will have some Standards in which they document greater strengths than in other Standards Assume that if a program fails to meet a Standard that the automatic recommendation is not for National Recognition
Use the rubrics and evaluation forms to guide you through the review process Discuss the Program Report or your review of the program with others
Provide critical and constructive feedback through comments and summative evaluations to provide guidance for program improvement Indulge in excessive and/or convoluted language making the report difficult to read, interpret, or rejoin
Refer to the complete documentation for each Standard as necessary to supplement the rubrics and evaluation forms Make excuses for a Standard not being met. The program can submit a rejoinder if there is additional documentation that was not included.
Complete the rubric and evaluation form in its entirety Focus on trivial weaknesses (e.g., the report exceeded the number of pages recommended)
Use appropriate professional language Apply "back home" standards

Return to Table of Contents

Unless specified otherwise, all material on this site is 2001 by AECT
Association for Educational Communications and Technology

1800 N. Stonelake Dr. Suite 2
Bloomington, IN • 47408


AECT Webmaster

AECT Home Membership Information Conferences & Events AECT Publications Post and Search Job Listings