ANNUAL REPORT (AR)

Part I
Reporting on Activities for Academic Year
June 1, 2018- May 31, 2019

Name Scot McNary Rank Associate Professor

Department of Educational Technology and Literacy

Area of Specialization Educational Research

Appointed to TU faculty: at rank Assistant in year 2007 .

Promotion History:

To rank Associate Professor in year 2013 ,

To rank in year , and
To rank in year .

I. Formal Degrees
A. Highest degree earned, with date and name of granting institution.

Ph.D. Clinical/Community Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, 2000.

B. If candidate for an advanced degree, indicate work completed since June 1, 2010

and present status. Corroborative material and/or transcript must be attached.

II. Teaching (percentage of workload: 60 %)

A. Evaluations and Grade Distributions

1. Teaching Evaluations for all courses Summer 2018-Spring 2019.

Summarizing across means, my average overall course evaluation was 4.52 (SD = 0.28),

and ranged from 4.22-4.82.

Course Mdn M SD N % resp.

Summer 2018
EDUC 605 Balt. County 4.20 4.22 0.28 6 37%
 Fall 2018
EDUC 605 4.83 4.66 0.27 7 44%
EDUC 605 Balt. County* 1 8%
ISTC 685/EDUC 761 4.29 4.27 0.39 7 87%
ISTC 685 Montgomery 4.80 4.75 0.21 5 42%

Spring 2019
ISTC 685/EDUC 761 4.50 4.55 0.22 9 69%
EDUC 790 4.83 4.82 0.25 6 86%
ISTC 685 Balt. County 4.53 4.49 0.30 18 80%
Weighted average 4.52 0.28
Note: ISTC 694 Directed Reading; EDUC 605 Research and Information
Technology; EDUC 761 Research in Education; EDUC 715 Statistical Principles
of Research Design and Analysis; ISTC 685 Research in Instructional
Technology. ISTC 694/695 students do not complete student evaluations. *Too
few students in the Fall 2018 EDUC 605 BCPS cohort completed the evaluation
to obtain data.

2. Insert below your class GPA and grade distribution.

These data are provided to your dean’s office by the Office of Institutional Research

(fall data are sent in February and spring data are sent in mid-June). Your dean’s office will

distribute these data to departments. You may fill out this table by indicating the number of

students in each grade category, or you may electronically insert the information by cutting and

pasting the entire section from the report.

Course Mea
A A- B+ B B- C+ C D+ D F FX Total W O n
Summer 2018
EDUC 605 Balt County 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 0 0 3.71
ISTC 694 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3.92

Fall 2018
EDUC 605 5 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17 1 1 3.42
EDUC 605 Balt County 4 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 3.67
ISTC 685/EDUC 761 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 8 0 1 2.62
ISTC 685 Montgomery 1 8 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 3.50
ISTC 694 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3.55
ISTC 998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 *

Spring 2019
ISTC 685/EDUC 761 1 4 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 3.35
EDUC 790 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 0 3.76
ISTC 685 Balt County 2 4 7 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 3.29
ISTC 694 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1.84
ISTC 998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 *

All Fall classes 12 22 7 4 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 54 1 3 3.39

All Spring classes 6 12 14 8 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 3.34
All classes 34 37 21 12 0 0 5 0 0 3 1 75 3 4 3.43
Note: A=4.0,A-=3.67,B+=3.33,B=3.0,C=2.0,F=0.0. Semester means are weighted by class size. “All classes” row
includes Summer 2018 grades.

3. Attach syllabi for all courses listed (must contain all elements required for syllabi

in Policies and Procedures for the Classroom: Course Syllabus).

See attached.
B. Non-classroom assignments which are part of your regular on-load teaching

assignment (i.e., coaching, directorships, supervision of student teachers).

Dissertation Committee Member

I was a member of ten students’ dissertation committees this academic year and will

continuing as Program Chair or Co-chair for two. LaTonya Dyer and Amy Chase Martin

completed their dissertations in 2018-2019. I served on the dissertation committee of a TU

graduate student in computer science, Nancy Shipley, who held her dissertation defense meeting

in April 2019. Chris Magalis is currently taking his comprehensive examinations. Andrew Holt

has requested I serve on his committee but paperwork has not yet been filed.

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019

Chip Boling Chip Boling Chip Boling Chip Boling
Tamara Burton Tamara Burton Tamara Burton Tamara Burton Tamara Burton
Lisa Carey Lisa Carey Lisa Carey
LaTonya Dyer LaTonya Dyer LaTonya Dyer LaTonya Dyer LaTonya Dyer LaTonya Dyer
Mila Fuller
Alex Greenwood Alex Greenwood Alex Greenwood Alex Greenwood
Andrew Holtp
Kathryn Lee Kathryn Lee Kathryn Lee Kathryn Lee
Chris Magalisp Chris Magalisp Chris Magalisp Chris Magalisp
Amy Martin Amy Martin Amy Martin Amy Martin Amy Martin Amy Martin
Lynne Murphy Lynne Murphy Lynne Murphy
Andrea Parrish Andrea Parrish Andrea Parrish Andrea Parrish
Stefani Pautz
Arkhadi Pustaka Arkhadi Pustaka Arkhadi Pustaka Arkhadi Pustaka Arkhadi Pustaka Arkhadi Pustaka
Matt Rietschelp Matt Rietschelp Matt Rietschelp Matt Rietschelp Matt Rietschelp Matt Rietschelp
Valerie Riggs Valerie Riggs
Cora Roush Cora Roush
Ben Smith
Jessica Stansburyp Jessica Stansburyp Jessica Stansburyp Jessica Stansburyp
Heather Swinder
Emily Stellman Emily Stellman
Shannon Tucker Shannon Tucker Shannon Tucker
Zhuo Wang Zhuo Wang Zhuo Wang Zhuo Wang
Dean Whitfield
Emily Ziegler Emily Ziegler Emily Ziegler Emily Ziegler Emily Ziegler
New instructional procedures which you have introduced (special projects, new

courses and/or materials)

ISTC 685/EDUC 761

Group Work

Although this is no longer a new procedure, I continue to document student responses to

this strategy in this section. I continued to offer the option for EDUC 605 and ISTC 685/EDUC

761 students to work as a group. Not all students elected to work with a partner, but those that

did tended to produce longer and more thoughtful assignments. Students organized themselves

into groups. I received feedback from a couple of students suggesting this was helpful:

 Spring 2019 ISTC 685: “The option to work with a partner was a fantastic idea because it

allowed to give-and-take, collaboration and discussion especially in cases where we didn't

understand a concept. I think I actually learned more by working with a partner than I

would have if I did the assignments alone.” or “We were also permitted to work in partners

which was helpful both for workload and understanding concepts.”

Simulations

I continue to use simulations in ISTC 685/EDUC 761 especially as it applies to

measurement and data analysis concepts. I have created brief simulations in Microsoft Excel to

demonstrate the t-test using permutation methods and to demonstrate reliability in a testing

context. For the reliability simulation, the student is assigned to take one of four different tests

(each one is on a separate sheet in a Microsoft Excel workbook), and the test entails guessing

whether or not the test taker likes the color blue. I have done this exercise with bags of marbles

constructed to produce a range of reliable test results. The advantages of the simulation over a
demonstration with physical manipulatives are 1) students can see multiple tests taken and the

results of those multiple tests graphed immediately; 2) Using physical manipulatives, I can have

four students take ten tests and then tabulate the results while the class watches. With my

simulation, students can simulate 100 test takers at a time, graph the results, then redo with a new

sample of 100 simulated test takers, and graph those results, etc.; 3) the simulation allows each

student to simulate many more samples than I can with an in-class physical demonstration.

Students can also take each of the tests and see the results of tests under conditions of varying

reliability.

I continue use these with students each semester as appropriate. I do not have systematic

data on their use because classes move at different paces and so not every class has had exposure

to the spreadsheets. I also use third-party, non-Java based simulation applications created by

other educators to supplement content on statistical analysis. Here are three I continue to use:

http://rpsychologist.com/d3/correlation/

The correlation simulator website allows students to observe the effect of changing the

numeric value of a correlation coefficient and observe the effects on the shape of the scatterplot

and slope of the regression line. I ask students to create a strong positive correlation, a strong

negative one, and then some arbitrary ones. We then try to imagine educational research

questions that might fit the pattern of points generated by the simulation. I also ask them to

increase the sample size and comment on how the relationship changes visually as the sample

size increases.

http://guessthecorrelation.com/
 A colleague discovered this delightful game (“Guess the Correlation”) that allows

participants to guess the numeric value of a correlation based on a randomly generated

scatterplot. The graphics are primitive (intentionally) and the game is cleverly simple. I regularly

have to ask students to stop playing we may move on to the next activity.

http://www.rossmanchance.com/applets/

This website contains multiple simulation applications for demonstrating randomization

procedures for statistical analysis. This is a different approach than frequentist methods, but I

believe students get a feeling for the intuition underlying frequentist statistics by observing the

resampling graphics. I used this website to replace all my lecture/discussion on inferential

statistics. After a general description, I ask each student to describe their own planned statistical

analysis and we run it with permutation simulations from the Rossman & Chance website,

allowing us to simulate an analysis matching their proposed data analysis plan. In the future, I

would like students to be able to customize a simulation approach like this on their own to run

simulated data through an analysis, but such customization would require considerable

programming. I hope to tackle this problem someday.

The second simulation procedure was also developed for ISTC 685/EDUC 761 students.

In order to demonstrate their understanding of descriptive and inferential statistics, I ask them to

prepare a dataset in class, with my help, that simulates data they would expect to obtain, if they

would carry out their study. They provide means and standard deviations for all subgroups in

their design, and then I help them simulate cases based on the means and standard deviations for

as many cases as they specify. This has the value of giving students simulated data to compute

with, but also requires them to understand their prior literature well enough to know what

magnitude of mean and standard deviation to expect. I view this as a step along the path towards
customization of simulations that I hope to develop mentioned above. Although I believe this

simulation method has potential, there was not enough time in the semester to spend developing

simulated datasets. I have not abandoned this approach, but it was on hiatus this year.

Audio Feedback

I experimented with providing audio feedback (MP3 files) for ISTC 685/EDUC 761

students and EDUC 605 students on their proposal drafts. I provided both written feedback and

audio summary feedback with links to the MP3 file on Blackboard. I used Audacity to record

and create the MP3 using my desktop and USB microphone for equipment. I found this effort to

be somewhat cumbersome and redundant with my written feedback. It caused me to take more

time to grade each assignment, and not a single student mentioned using it, despite my reminders

that it was available. Moreover, not a single student mentioned it in the course evaluation

comments. In talking with colleagues who provide audio feedback more regularly, I learned that

this is more critical for online classes in which no face to face contact is scheduled as it is with

on campus or cohort classes. I may reconsider using it for future classes that are online or hybrid.

EDUC 790

Flipped Classroom

For the second time, I attempted to teach EDUC 790 as a flipped classroom. The last

attempt was in September of 2016, so I still regard this as a new instructional technique. I have

lecture notes, chapter assignments, and web links on Blackboard for students. They have

assigned readings before class, and after class starts I ask them for questions. Usually there were

no questions, so we spent the rest of the class meeting using SPSS with prepared datasets. We

focused on different research questions, using different statistical techniques to match the
research questions. My evaluation of the method is that it may not be optimally useful for this

content with this population of students. My materials need better organization and freshening.

My videos are old, using earlier versions of the software, and so are a little out of date. I do not

yet have audio/video supplements for my lecture slides. However, even if all of my materials

were optimally freshened and organized, some students expressed a desire for more teacher-

focused instruction for part of the class session:

 “I feel that the course should spend more time on discussing WHY we are doing

what we are doing... EG.. spend 1.5 hours lecturing on something, then show us in

BB (one hour). We spent most of our classtime in SPSS working through the steps of

the procedures without fully understanding why we were doing what we were doing.

While I appreciated it the opportunity to do this, when I tried to do my HW I spent a

great deal of time researching WHY things were done.... I am leaving the course

knowing a lot about how to use SPSS, but I don't feel secure on WHY the

procedures are always used. The increase in content lecture would help there.”

Other students suggested materials could have been better organized, and also requested

working on group projects within class. These suggestions suggest that a more teacher-focused

discussion would be a better introduction to the material, followed by student-focused practice.

Advising (including number of students, whether majors, undeclared, or

interdisciplinary students)

These are doctoral students I have consulted with since 2013, but either not as a

committee member, as with Jen Mullenax, or I was a committee member for a student outside
EDTL. I provided research design and statistical analysis guidance for all students. This past year

I was on Nancy Shipley’s committee in the Computer Science department on campus.

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019

Atiya Afsanio Atiya Afsanio Atiya Afsanio Atiya Afsanio

Hyun-Kyung Kim

Carrie McFadden Carrie McFadden Carrie McFadden Carrie McFadden

Jen Mullenax

Sagar Rainao

Nancy Shipleyo Nancy Shipleyo Nancy Shipleyo

Note: I was a committee member for Nancy Shipley’s committee, from the Computer Science department on campus

Doctoral student dissertation committee membership, described above as non-class

mentorship, also falls into the category of advising. These are detailed in the tables above. All

my consulting activities are detailed in an accompanying spreadsheet.

Correlation Statement. If your productivity did not match your projections for academic period

2018-2019, please explain. N/A

III. Scholarship (percentage of workload: 30%)

A spreadsheet in the scholarship section provides detail on type of project conducted and

amount of time spent from Summer 2018 to Spring 2019 on each project.

Correlation Statement. If your productivity did not match your projections for academic year 2018-

2019, please explain. N/A

Manuscripts under review

Li, Q., Richman, L., Haines, S. & McNary, S.W. (submitted). Computational thinking in

classrooms: A study of a PD for STEM teachers in high needs schools. Submitted to

Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology.

I was the evaluator for this study and conducted the focus groups, qualitative analysis of

focus group data, the quantitative data analysis, and wrote the data analysis findings in the draft.
Technical Papers

McNary SW (2019). Evaluation of the 2018 Dimensions of China Fullbright-Hayes Program.

Prepared for Principal Investigator Lijun Jin, Ed.D. Towson, MD.

I was the evaluator and data analyst for this project and wrote the evaluation report to

include with Lijun Jin’s final report to the Fullbright-Hayes program.

Conference Presentations

McNary SW. (2018, July). Research methods: A brief survey of methods and ideas. Invited

address for the American Psychological Association Minority Fellowship Psychology

Summer Institute, Washington, DC.

This is an invited presentation to Fellows of the MFP, who are advanced graduate

students or early career professional psychologists conducting research on minority issues. I

conceptualized, developed, and wrote 100% of the presentation.

Parrish, A.H., McNary, SW & Sadera, W. (2019, March). Validation of teaching competencies

needed to facilitate instruction in student-centered, one-to-one learning environments

Roundtable presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Instructional Technology

in Teacher Education, Las Vegas, NV.

This is a presentation that supports measure development based on Andrea Parrish’s

dissertation. We each equally participated in the design and writing of the presentation. I used

Skype to attend while Bill and Andrea attended in person.

McNary, S.W. & Laster, B.P. (2019, April). Democratizing evidence of gains in an urban

reading clinic: a collaborative self-study. Roundtable presented at the annual meeting of

the American Educational Research Association. Toronto, ONT, CA.

 This research is based on work conducted during my sabbatical. Barbara was highly

involved in the conceptualization and writing of the paper, and we were equally involved in the

writing of the presentation. I prepared the data, conducted the coding, and completed the analysis

and table/graphics for the presentation.

Grants submitted

N/A

Consultation

The following is a brief description of the amount of consulting activity I have conducted

since 2007 by stakeholder group. See the Service section for a more extensive description of time

spent and activities completed.

Year/Source Number of Consultees Hours

COE Faculty Researchers
2018-2019 4 63
2017-2018 9 69
2016-2017 5 46
2015-2016 9 45
2014-2015 11 88
2013-2014 13 140
2012-2013 11 122
2011-2012 16 87
2010-2011 17 90
2009-2010 9 83
2008-2009 8 62
2007-2008 5 33

Doctoral Students
2018-2019 10 76
2017-2018 12 91
2016-2017 15 141
2015-2016 15 181
2014-2015 15 148
2013-2014 15 54
2012-2013 11 67
2011-2012 11 87
2010-2011 8 45
 2009-2010 13 49
2008-2009 10 58
2007-2008 8 52

Masters in Education Students

2018-2019 0 0
2017-2018 0 0
2016-2017 2 4
2015-2016 0 0
2014-2015 0 0
2013-2014 1 5
2012-2013 0 0
2011-2012 0 0
2010-2011 6 39
2009-2010 1 21
2008-2009 7 33
2007-2008 3 10

Outside the College Researchers

2018-2019 1 2
2017-2018 1 1
2016-2017 0 0
2015-2016 2 7
2014-2015 2 6
2013-2014 6 45
2012-2013 4 14
2011-2012 1 8
2010-2011 3 12
2009-2010 4 57
2008-2009 8 35
2007-2008 4 41

Conferences Attended

2018-2019
APA Minority Fellowship Research Day (invited speaker) July 2018 Washington DC

Correlation Statement. If your productivity did not match your projections for academic

period 2018-2019, please explain. N/A

IV.Service (percentage of workload: 10%)

Profession
Reviewing
  Editorial Board Member, Child Abuse and Neglect. (reviewed 10 journal manuscripts and

completed one revision review)

 Ad hoc reviewer

 The Teacher Educator (1 manuscript)

Non-college/non-University consultation

None in 2018-2019.

University

Committees

Institutional Review Board (Summer 2014-present). I reviewed 12 applications in the

2018-2019 academic year for the committee and participated in the full review of 18 other

applications. The committee meets as a full board on the third Thursday of each month.

Conflict of Interest panel. A committee of four people, facilitated by Nancy Dufau of

OSRP met on 4/29/19 to recommend action to resolve potential conflicts of interest in an FDRC

application by TU faculty.

Faculty Consultation

None in 2018-2019.

College

Committees

I served on the COE Scholarships committee 2018-2019. In the 2018-2019 academic year

we met five times, including in June 2019. This year we reviewed over 150 applicants and

awarded over $30,000 in scholarships.

 I served on the TEEB committee. Responsibilities include listening to recommendations

for course catalog changes for coursework relevant to undergraduate teaching candidates and

voting on proposed changes. The TEEB met monthly during the 2018-2019 academic year.

Faculty Consultation

I consulted with four different COE faculty members for a total of 63 hours. In addition, I

co-chaired the Faculty Research professional learning community group along with Rebecca

Shargel Ed.D., which was approved by the College Council for 2018-2019.

Department

Student Advising

I am currently a dissertation committee member for ten Ed.D. students and am program

chair for two of those students. I further consulted with one doctoral student from Computer

Science and served on her dissertation committee (Nancy Shipley).

Committees

Admissions committee (2008-2019), Department Promotion and Tenure Committee,

Doctoral Program committee (2008-2019).

Correlation Statement. If your productivity did not match your projections for academic

period 2018-2019 please explain. N/A

 ANNUAL REVIEW (AR)

Part II
Agreement On Faculty Workload Expectations For Academic Year
June 1, 2019 - May 31, 2020

I. Teaching (percentage of workload: 70 %)

A. List all of the regular classroom teaching assignments planned for the 2019-2020

academic year.

Course Title/Number Credit Hours

Fall 2019
ISTC 685 (off campus) 3
ISTC 685 (off campus) 3
ISTC 685 (off campus) 3
ISTC 685/EDUC 761 3
ISTC 694 1
Spring 2020
EDUC 605 3
ISTC 685 (off campus) 3
ISTC 685/ EDUC 761 3
ISTC 694 1

B. Non-classroom assignments which will be part of your regular on-load teaching

assignment (i.e., coaching, directorships, supervision of student teachers) for the

2019-2020 academic year.

a. Dissertation committee member for the following nine students: Lisa Carey, Andrew Holt, Chris
Magalis, Amy Martin, Arkhadi Pustaka, Matt Rietschel, Heather Swinder, Emily Stellman, and
Shannon Tucker. I will also be supervising an action research project for an Secondary Education
M.Ed. student.
b. I no longer have a course release for student and faculty research support and consultation in the
College of Education but retain one course release for my own research.

C. New instructional procedures which you plan to introduce this year (special
projects, new courses and/or materials). Also include interdisciplinary, diversity,
international and new technology projects, if appropriate.
I will be converting ISTC 685/EDUC 761 to a fully online course.

D. Advising (including number of students, whether majors, undeclared, or interdisciplinary students)

 I will be providing consultation for M.Ed. and Ed.D. students (other than thesis committee work). I expect
to work with at least one M.Ed. and one Ed.D. student.

II. Scholarship (percentage of workload: 20 %)

I expect to produce one conference presentation and one manuscript publication in the following year. I

will continue to add reading clinic student case report data on fluency to my current database and analyze the

quantitative data in an ongoing way. I expect to have four more semesters of student case reports read. I will also be

continuing to pursue the textual analysis of the case report data. I have been asked to be an evaluator on three

projects whose funding is pending, but would begin in 2020 if successful.

III. Service (percentage of workload: 10%)

[For any of these activities which are part of your workload, please indicate.]

Community: Consultation with non-profit and non-for-profit agencies in research design, data analysis, and
psychometrics as appropriate

Profession: Reviewing, external researcher consultation

University (all levels): University Institutional Review Board, College Scholarships Committee, College TEEB
Committee, Department Admissions committee, Department Doctoral Program committee, student and faculty
research consultation

SIGNATURES:

Faculty Member Date

Chairperson of Department Date

Dean of College Date