CF Comprehensive Report Fall 07

Conceptual Framework Narrative for Institutional Report—Fall, 2007

Submitted by J. Lester, CF Team Leader 

Conceptual Framework Overview

Note:  This is a working document from which the 3-page IR report was taken. Links may not be active.

1a. The vision and mission of the unit

Southeastern Louisiana University's mission is to lead the educational, economic, and cultural development of our area.  The College of Education and Human Development (COEHD) faculty and its partners reflected on the Mission and Vision Statements of the institution to establish a model framework to prepare candidates who will set the standard for excellence through best practices.  The Mission and Vision statements adopted by the unit:  

Mission Statement:  The College of Education and Human Development exists to serve the regional, state, national, and global communities by developing effective professionals through implementing innovative and progressive programs. 

Vision Statement:  The faculty of the College of Education and Human Development prepares candidates to become effective professionals who set the standard for excellence through best practices.

The following definitions are offered to help the reader understand the College of Education and Human Development (COEHD) Conceptual Framework (CF): 

Candidate:  (the Southeastern student) 

The Effective Professional:

Departments of:

Teaching & Learning-The Effective Educator

Educational Leadership & Technology-The Effective School Leader

Counseling & Human Development-The Effective School Counselor 

Learner:

Departments of:

Teaching & Learning-the PK-12 student

Educational Leadership & Technology–principals, teachers, students, supervisors, parents

Counseling & Human Development-students, parents 

Partners:  The wider professional community, including the Colleges of Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences; Science & Technology; Nursing & Health Sciences; P-12 schools; and the professional community. 

Knowledge Base:  Theoretical foundation in the appropriate field for best practices as applied to developing the conceptual framework. 

Diversity:  The unit provides opportunities for candidates to understand the role of diversity and equity in the teaching and learning process.  The effective professional can help all students learn and can teach from multicultural and global perspectives that draw on the histories, experiences, and representations of students from diverse cultural backgrounds.   

Technology:  Technology is emphasized throughout all programs and is used to support and improve student learning. 

Knowledge:  Candidates have a thorough understanding of subject matter they plan to teach and a thorough understanding of the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of their fields, as delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards.  

Skills:  Candidates have a thorough understanding of pedagogical and professional knowledge skills in their fields as delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. 

Dispositions:  Candidates work with students, families, and communities in ways that reflect the dispositions expected of professional educators as delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards.

1b. Philosophy, purposes, goals, and institutional standards of the unit

Through the tedious process of self-reflection and analysis, we have held our program up to the light of state and national standards, the scholarly literature, and the realities of the changing world in which we live. We have a strong belief in preparing candidates who positively impact the lives of students, families, and communities (need help with this scholarly statement!).  Therefore, our curriculum, our instruction, our field experiences, and our assessment of candidates’ proficiencies are focused in this direction.  Our purposes include the development of effective professionals that will Goals are being achieved by tie in vision.  The Conceptual Framework (CF) provides the structure that is necessary to accomplish these tasks. 

Currently, this model is built upon four structural elements or components that, when taken together, are necessary for candidates to become Effective Professionals.  As our institutional standards, the components include knowledge of learner, strategies and methods, content knowledge, and professional standards.  Additionally, diversity and technology are included in the structural design as themes that are integrated throughout all programs in the educational unit. These components are based on current research about effective teaching and learning for novice and accomplished teachers as well as educational leaders and counselors.  The CF is a living document that continuously evolves as opportunities and challenges emerge to more clearly articulate our institutional standards. 

Narratives that address the components of the Conceptual Framework from the philosophical perspectives of each department in the College of Education and Human Development follow.  Representatives from the departments express how each component is relative to programs as well as how diversity and technology are integrated throughout program activities. 

Knowledge of Learner

Candidates’ understanding of the learner which is necessary to provide effective and equitable instruction

The educational unit prepares candidates to demonstrate and value sensitivity to the needs of all learners. Candidates acquire an understanding of learners as individuals and incorporate this knowledge as they progress through their educational experiences at Southeastern.  As effective professionals, they continue that practice throughout their careers.  Diversity is an integral part of the program, and Technology is integrated throughout the program. 

In the Department of Teaching and Learning, the Effective Educator addresses Knowledge of Learner (KL).  Our Conceptual Framework reflects our belief that knowledge of the learner strongly impacts student learning.  Exceptional teachers understand their students as learners and know how each individual student thinks about various topics.  Furthermore, they base their instructional decisions on this knowledge (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999).  Feinman-Nemser and Buchmann (1987) contend that knowledge of the learner and learning in planning and teaching is “critical knowledge of teaching.”  The core of our teacher preparation program, and infused throughout all that we do in the College of Education and Human Development, is understanding of the learner, learning, and the complexity and diversity of the two.  In the Department of Teaching and Learning, the learner is the PreK-12 student.  KL is addressed by teaching candidates strategies for understanding and getting to know their students.  Multiple methods and activities designed to teach candidates about individual student diversity are used including lecture, small and large group discussion, research assignments, and field experiences.  Many diversity topics are covered, including culture (ethnicity, race, nationality), multiple intelligences, developmental theories, personality measures, special needs/exceptionalities, socio-economics, gender, and sexual preference. 

The Effective Educator understands the shift in education from a focus on teaching and following curriculum to a focus on learning and making instructional decisions based on knowledge of the learner.  The importance of knowing one’s students and the diverse strengths and needs of those students is taught early in the program through Educational Psychology and Special Education courses.  In these courses candidates learn developmental theory that gives them the ability in later classes to create and conduct developmentally appropriate instruction and assessment (Currie & Wadlington, 2000; Hurley & Tinajero, 2001; Nieto, 2007; Ramirez, 1999; Snell, 2005; Wood, 2002).  In addition to developmental theories, many aspects of diversity are covered in the program, including issues regarding culture, nationality, personality, exceptionality, socio-economics, and gender.  Such content helps build respect for diversity in both learners and learning that is particularly important for teachers working with the diverse student populations in today’s schools.  To further help candidates address the diverse needs of their students, educational technology (i.e. computer use, power point, internet, graphing, educational software, etc.) for instructional and assessment purposes is infused in coursework.  

Reinforcement of developmental and diversity concepts continue throughout the candidates’ programs as they advance in their coursework.  Their knowledge is assessed in multiple ways, including observation, testing, portfolios, and other methods that are aligned with the CF, as well as professional, state, and national standards.  During observations, candidates are assessed with various instruments, such as The Summative Evaluation Report of Teaching.  Additionally, individual candidate assessments include tests, lesson planning (as it relates to differentiation), portfolios, online assessments (including Project Implicit <http://projectimplicit.net/about.php>http://projectimplicit.net/about.php), and others.  Ultimately, candidates’ application of knowledge of the learner is demonstrated and assessed in advanced field experiences.  During these experiences, candidates evaluate students’ needs, recognize and plan for individual differences, and integrate this knowledge to develop effective instruction.  Candidates become aware that they need a solid understanding of the learner in order to assess prior knowledge in light of the content and standards, to design and implement appropriate teaching strategies congruent with the Louisiana Components of Effective Teaching, and to assess learning to further inform instruction.  These field experiences allow candidates to experience real world settings which better prepares them for teaching in the regional, state, national and even global community after graduation. 

In the Department of Educational Leadership and Technology, the Effective School Leader addresses Knowledge of Learner.  The faculty of the Educational Leadership program believes that candidates’ understanding of the learner is necessary to provide effective and equitable instruction.  The educational leadership faculty prepares candidates to demonstrate and value sensitivity to the needs of all learners, teachers, and students. Candidates acquire an understanding of learners as individuals and incorporate this knowledge through the progression of their educational experiences at Southeastern Louisiana University. As effective professionals, they continue this practice throughout their careers. Diversity is an integral part of the program as candidates are assigned to diverse educational settings with diverse ethnicity, culture, and economics to participate in field experiences. The faculty of the Educational Leadership Program values and promotes equality and diversity for candidates. Each candidate is valued for their diversity and work to ensure that all members of the learning community treat one another with respect and dignity. Aspiring leadership candidates lead teacher teams that capitalize on diversity to create a school culture that promotes respect and success for all students. Candidates also engage in activities that emphasize the diversity of learners and learners’ needs. During initial course work in the program, each candidate is assessed for basic technology skills required for success throughout the program. If additional skills are needed, seminars and tutorials are offered.

In the Department of Counseling and Human Development, the Effective School Counselor addresses Knowledge of Learner by preparing graduates with the knowledge and skills necessary for entry into the field of professional school counseling. Serving a diverse population and student body, the program=s comprehensive approach strives to foster new and innovative ideas and promote a sensitivity, understanding and respect for individual differences.  Program faculty expect all counseling candidates to be devoted to the program=s mission and give full attention to the process of personal and professional growth as a prerequisite for successful program completion.

The counseling faculty also recognizes the diversity of the environment in which professional school counselors work and include specialized knowledge and skills necessary to function as a professional school counselor (Baker & Gerler, 2004).  The infusion approach to teaching diversity is implemented in the curriculum so that the graduates of this program will have had the maximum exposure to the essential theme of diversity.  In addition to the infusion approach to teaching diversity, a (required? And name?) multicultural course integrates knowledge base, theory, and practical application to insure a better understanding of the learner.  Technology is also utilized throughout the program to enhance the counseling candidate’s understanding of the many and varied issues facing school children and their families in today’s society. 

Strategies and Methods

Strategies and methods appropriate to each program within the educational unit which are necessary to develop effective professionals 

The effective professional demonstrates best practices through inquiry, creativity, and reflective thinking. Constructive and reflective problem-solving processes require the effective professional to consider and integrate complex information.  Diversity is an integral part of the program, and Technology is integrated throughout the program. 

In the Department of Teaching and Learning, the Effective Educator addresses Strategies and Methods (SM).  Best teaching practices integrate content knowledge, personal skills, technological tools, and varied instructional approaches.  Emphasis is placed on involving and guiding candidates in assessing their own learning as members of the learning community.  Candidates learn to utilize available resources as they work in teams and collaborate to develop, implement, and assess instruction.  An Effective Educator works collaboratively and builds community within the classroom to develop and implement effective instruction (Burke, 1999).  In introductory level courses, candidates learn the value of teamwork as they solve problems and complete performance-based tasks requiring application of course content.  As our candidates begin field-based courses, they continue to develop professional competence in working collaboratively with mentor teachers, colleagues, administrators and parents.  At the same time, our candidates use cooperative groups with their students to teach collaboration and to establish a sense of community.  They are placed in diverse settings in order to maximize field based experiences.  

As our candidates look for effective strategies and methods to promote student understanding of the content, our COEHD embraces best pedagogical practices, which are based on research of effective strategies as well as current research on how children learn.  Initially, candidates begin to understand how learning takes place and to develop an emerging philosophy of teaching.  With the knowledge that beliefs shape practice, we are preparing Effective Educators with the dispositions to plan instruction from a solid foundation (Black & Ammon, 1992; Grossman & Richert, 1988; Rovegno, 1993).  This emerging understanding of professional standards, knowledge of learner, and content knowledge is used to make decisions about which activities, strategies, methods, and materials are most appropriate for a particular group of students in a particular context.  Teaching beliefs and philosophy are reflected in their pedagogical choices.  Additionally, candidates strive to understand their students in order to create and sustain learning communities within the classroom.  Cooperative groups are used to establish a community of learners in a risk-free environment.  Parents are considered to be members of the wider learning community, and they are involved as learning resources.  Candidates demonstrate knowledge of pedagogy appropriate to specific content areas and knowledge and skills of effective instructional as they implement strategies in lessons.  Candidates use varied types of assessment in order to improve teaching and learning, and they apply best practices for effective classroom management of time, space, and resources. 

Our teacher preparation program introduces teacher candidates to cutting edge instructional strategies throughout our education program, whether in the field of literacy, mathematics, social studies, science education, or technology.  Faculty model these practices for candidates in our coursework, methods courses, in our onsite Laboratory School, at professional development sites, and in partnerships with our local school systems.  Faculty are continually attending state, regional, national, and international conferences to present effective strategies and methods, as well as to stay current in the field of pedagogy.  Instructors and university supervisors observe candidate teaching and offer feedback on the representation of the content and how accessible it was to student learning.  Mentor classroom teachers and peers observe, analyze and offer their feedback.   Assessment of our candidates’ implementation of pedagogical practices embraces best practices in assessment—including multiple methods, sources, and traits.  Examples of methods include portfolios, observations, lesson plans, examinations, and demonstrations.  Sources include instructors, mentors, peers, and self.  Traits include knowledge, skills, and dispositions. 

Our candidates have the disposition to reflect on their own teaching and students’ responses in order to improve their instruction and impact on student achievement (Burgess, 1998; Gore & Zeichner, 1991; Schon, 1987; Taggart & Wilson, 1998S).  After each lesson, candidates reflect on their own teaching, considering the Louisiana Components of Effective Teaching, the instructional strategies and methods, classroom management and organization, and specifically, the impact on student learning.  Our candidates video tape their teaching and then analyze student learning in order to plan more effective lessons.  The COEHD offers job-imbedded opportunities for our graduate candidates to try out best practices and action research projects to reflect on student learning in their classrooms. 

Because of the complexity of learning, the diverse needs of learners, and the differing social contexts of schools, Effective Educators must have a large repertoire of materials, modes of interacting, and ways of organizing classrooms.  They must draw on their content knowledge to select appropriate and differing ways to make that content accessible to the learners.  An Effective Educator understands all four components of the conceptual framework and has a plethora of strategies and methods as resources. 

In the Department of Educational Leadership and Technology, the Effective School Leader addresses Strategies and Methods.  The Effective School Leader demonstrates best leadership practices through inquiry, creative, and reflective thinking. Strategies and methods of adult learning are used to teach aspiring school leaders to apply these strategies and methods to lead school and district faculty during field-based experiences throughout the program. The instructors engage candidates in building on personal reservoirs of classroom experiences in the processes of analysis and decision-making. Following active participation in planned classroom and field experiences, candidates apply these skills in authentic experiences in school and district leadership activities.  Diversity is an integral part of the strategies and methods used in the university classroom and exhibited by leadership candidates as they observe, participate and lead the learning community. Throughout each seminar, candidates lead school and district staff in field-based activities that include reaching out to diverse populations, sensitive and responsive conferences with parents of diverse backgrounds, and celebrations for diverse cultures. Candidates examine human development theory, apply proven learning and motivational theories, and infuse concern for diversity to the learning process. Throughout the program, aspiring school leaders are required to use technology in administrative/supervision applications and in classroom teaching and learning strategies.  

      In the Department of Counseling and Human Development, the Effective School Counselor addresses Strategies and Methods by its strict adherence to the standards of its national accrediting body:  Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) (www.cacrep.org).  These standards define the skills and techniques required of all practicing professional school counselors.  Core courses in counseling are required in addition to specialized electives addressing specific skills and techniques for counseling children and adolescents (Baker & Gerler, 2004; Thompson, Rudolph, & Henderson, 2004).  Field based practicum and internships provide opportunities for counseling candidates to apply their skills and techniques in working with students, teachers, administrators and parents from diverse populations (Kampwirth, 2006).  Counseling candidates must use technology to enhance their counseling skills and provide guidance instruction during field-based experiences.  Videotaped counseling sessions are utilized by on-site supervisors and university faculty to monitor counseling candidate progress.  Strict clinical supervision by the on-site supervisors and university faculty ensures the counseling candidate’s progression toward the mastery of the required basic skills and techniques. 

Content Knowledge

Candidates’ thorough understanding of the content appropriate to the area of specialization

Candidates exhibit depth of knowledge in their area of specialization and breadth of understanding of general subjects within the educational unit.  Diversity is an integral part of the program, and Technology is integrated throughout the program. 

In the Department of Teaching and Learning, the Effective Educator addresses Content Knowledge (CK).  Effective Educators know content area concepts and are able to see the ways they represent and present these concepts to their students will impact student achievement.  Our programs are based on the preparation of candidates with a solid content background and skills in infusing technology into a variety of instructional settings.  Faculty and field-based support personnel model effective teaching strategies, the use of technology, and sensitivity to the needs of all learners.  Candidates assess student learning and determine instructional strategies to impact student achievement, and this diagnostic ability is directly linked to the candidates’ specialized content knowledge (Shulman, 1986).  Teacher content knowledge cannot stand discretely from knowledge of professional standards and knowledge of the learner.  Blanton (1992) suggests that effective teachers have various knowledge bases.  Shulman (1986) elaborates on this by including content disciplines, structures of the teaching profession, and practical knowledge, linking these to the learner’s developmental needs.  Shulman contends that this knowledge is critical to impact student achievement. 

The Effective Educator must know the content as well as what students should know and be able to do; they must demonstrate knowledge of the general principles of effective teaching and learning; and they must have a theoretical understanding of how classrooms work along with a practical knowledge of how to make things happen in the classroom (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987).  Opportunities are provided for Southeastern candidates to build this content knowledge.  Our programs are based on the preparation of candidates with a solid content background as our candidates take core content courses in the Colleges of Nursing & Health Sciences; Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences; and Science & Technology.  (Our faculty works in collaboration with faculty partners from Arts and Sciences in designing “Learning Community” courses, which are innovative classes that integrate content discipline courses with education classes.  Examples include COM 211 and MATH 261, etc.)  Candidates are prepared to facilitate the development of critical, analytical, and reflective thinking in their students.  Our faculty strives to present content material in our courses with sensitivity to diversity and cultural issues, as well as to raise awareness about how these issues impact diverse learners and student achievement.  Literacy instruction is integrated across the curriculum, and content area lessons are interrelated to help students see connections between concepts. 

Becoming teachers in today’s world requires knowledge of technology and information literacy.  Our candidates become computer literate as technology competencies are woven throughout our program.  They learn how to use technology and how to access, evaluate, and use information.  Then they are expected to fuse technology into their instruction as they begin field experiences.  The Effective Educator knows that technology is a tool that can further enhance understanding of the content, enrich resources and experiences in the students’ world, and expand thinking to connect the content and the student.  As well, the kinds of thinking skills demanded in today’s technological/information age demand thinking about the content at the critical, analytical, and reflective levels of processing.  Students must know how to analyze and problem solve the content, how to see the relationships between and among the content concepts and disciplines, and have the communication skills to articulate their processing and thinking (Hammer, 1997).  This requires a deeper level of understanding of content knowledge than required in past years. 

We believe that knowing content matter alone is not sufficient to ensure learning or to impact student achievement.  The Effective Educator takes the content knowledge of a subject area and effectively transforms the subject matter to promote student understanding.  Shulman (1986) identified this is as “pedagogical content knowledge.”  Pedagogy is the “most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations---in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” (p. 9).  It is how the content is presented to students to make it accessible to them (Grossman, 1990).  Pedagogical content knowledge goes beyond subject matter, integrating knowledge of the content, curriculum, the learner, and the school context (Noddings, 1990; Shulman, 1986).  In the language of Southeastern, it reflects the interrelatedness of our Conceptual Framework: that as our teacher candidates plan instruction to impact student achievement, they must consider state and professional standards and how technology can enhance both teaching and learning.  They must be knowledgeable of the diverse learning styles of students and have an in-depth knowledge about the students for whom they are planning.  They must have a strong understanding of the content being studied and have a myriad of ways to plan for learning.   

Assessment of content knowledge begins with the entrance into the Teacher Preparation Program, as it is dependent upon passage of a pre-professional skills test of the PRAXIS I Examination, attainment of a minimum 2.5 GPA, participation in a group interview, and successful completion of SARTE requirements.  Prerequisites must be met prior to acceptance into specific education courses.  Candidates must achieve a minimum grade of “C” in education and specialized courses and must receive a passing score on their career portfolios before advancing to the next level in the Teacher Preparation Program.  Finally, the candidate must successfully complete the PRAXIS II series prior to entering student teaching.

We believe candidates must have a strong content knowledge base so that they can begin to appreciate how students come to understand the content, what difficulties the students might encounter, and what common misconceptions might interfere with true understanding.  They must recognize how to connect the content to students’ lives and how to concrete the abstract for students to be able to truly construct their own understanding.   And our candidates must choose what content knowledge “has the greatest significance for children as individual and social beings” (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1987) as they consider professional standards and their students’ needs, interests, and developmental levels.   

In the Department of Educational Leadership and Technology, the Effective School Leader addresses Content Knowledge.  Candidates exhibit depth of knowledge in leadership theory and philosophy as well as knowledge of effective teaching and learning skills and strategies. Aspiring leadership candidates have the necessary content knowledge for leading school improvement in the learning community.  Additionally, candidates are provided specific knowledge of literacy and numeracy as preparation for working with schools and their improvement efforts.  Candidates learn about diverse cultures and the relationship of these cultures to teaching and learning and communication with families. To work with all elements of the community, candidates, as educational leaders, recognize, value, and communicate effectively with various cultural, ethnic, racial, and special interest groups. Technology applications for school and instructional management are taught as basic content knowledge for school leaders. Other software applications are presented and used throughout the program. 

 In the Department of Counseling and Human Development, the Effective School Counselor addresses Content Knowledge.  The standards outlined by the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) provide a strict framework for ensuring that counseling candidates are receiving the content knowledge necessary to meet the needs of the diverse school communities in which they serve, including the implementation of appropriate technological resources.  Counseling candidates must utilize technology to enrich their understanding of key issues facing children and adolescents from diverse populations by participating in research projects, making conference presentations, and developing school and community in-service programs.  Counseling candidates are required to develop Comprehensive Developmental Counseling Programs that adhere to the standards set forth by the American School Counseling Association (Gysbers & Henderson, 1994).  These programs must be implemented during the counseling students’ internship experiences. 

1c. Knowledge bases, including theories, research, wisdom of practice, and educational policies that drive the work of the unit 

The Department of T&L adopted the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support consortium (INTASC) standards for its knowledge base for undergraduate and initial certification programs and has aligned these standards with the components and themes of the CF.  The guiding principle of this consortium of state education agencies and national educational organizations is that “An effective teacher must be able to integrate content knowledge with the specific strengths and needs of students to assure that all students learn and perform at high levels.” (INTASC website: http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Interstate_New_Teacher_Assessment_and_Support_Consortium/)  The graduate programs within T&L adopted the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) for its knowledge base and have aligned those standards with the components of the CF as well.  (NBPTS website: http://www.nbpts.org/)   (Need knowledge base for EL&T National and State). 

The four components of the CF along with the two integrated themes of diversity and technology are supported by established theoretical perspectives and research-driven practices.  (See CF 00:  Narrative IR Report Fall 07 References and Theoretical Support for a detailed listing.)   

Professional Standards

Established criteria that guide effective professionals in each discipline area

The educational unit is based on professional standards, enabling candidates to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become effective professionals. University course objectives and learner outcomes are aligned with national, state, and institutional standards. Candidates incorporate professional standards as they progress through their educational experiences at Southeastern and continue that practice throughout their careers.  Diversity is an integral part of the program, and Technology is integrated throughout the program. 

In the Department of Teaching and Learning, the Effective Educator addresses Professional Standards (PS).  Candidates are prepared to teach in today’s PK-12 schools through implementation of standards established by professional education councils and organizations.  Southeastern bases its teacher preparation programs on national and state standards to ensure that graduates of the programs meet the expectations for highly professional educators.

 The unit addresses professional standards of a number of national organizations, including the Special Program Associations (SPAs) that represent the various programs within teacher education.  (Link to a list with links to SPA charts, etc.).   Professional organizations such as the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the Association for Childhood International (ACEI) provide standards for elementary education degree programs.  Secondary education degree programs must meet standards prescribed by professional organizations within the specific disciplines, such as the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).  In her review entitled, Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence, Darling-Hammond (1999) reports that “Quantitative analyses indicate that measures of teacher preparation and certification are by far the strongest correlates of student achievement in reading and mathematics, both before and after controlling for student poverty and language status” (p. 4).   Professional standards incorporate performance criteria that require teacher education candidates to teach diverse populations of students to achieve at expected levels of performance.  Southeastern strives to develop highly qualified teachers through a program that places them in a variety of settings to teach well-prepared lessons to students from diverse backgrounds and with varied abilities. 

In the Department of Educational Leadership and Technology, the Effective School Leader addresses Professional Standards.  The Educational Leadership faculty bases its instructional program on the Educational Leadership Constituents Council (ELCC), the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), and the Standards for Louisiana Principals standards to guide all aspects of developing each candidate’s knowledge, skills and dispositions to become effective school leaders. Each seminar’s objectives are aligned with those standards. Aspiring leadership candidates incorporate these standards in assignments, field experiences, and artifacts through self assessment as they progress throughout the leadership program. Diversity is an integral part of the program and part of the ELCC standards. For example, when candidates lead a school team in creating a vision, the team is led to base this vision on relevant knowledge and theories and understanding of learning goals in a pluralistic society.  Technology is emphasized throughout the program through the use of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards.

In the Department of Counseling and Human Development, the Effective School Counselor addresses Professional Standards.  The Counseling Program’s instructional program is based on the standards set forth by the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP).  Legal guidelines for Licensed Professional Counselors (LPCs), as enforced by the Louisiana LPC Board of Examiners (www.lpcboard.org), are also used to guide all aspects of the programs, as are the ethical guidelines defined by the American Counseling Association (www.counseling.org), American School Counseling Association (www.schoolcounselor.org), and the Louisiana Counseling Association (www.lacounseling.org).  The certification guidelines outlined by the Louisiana State Department of Education (http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/index.html) are also utilized when considering course offerings.  Each organization is committed to preparing successful and effective professional school counselors.  CACREP standards emphasize the need for all professional school counselors to be competent when working with diverse populations.  The use of technology is infused in all coursework, which provides all counseling candidates with the expertise to utilize appropriate technology when working in schools (Cobia & Henderson, 2003; Gysbers & Henderson, 1994).

 The Effective Professional is a reflective practitioner who understands how learners process information and develop and provides learning opportunities that support the learner's cognitive, social, and physical development.  Our candidates exhibit depth of knowledge in their area of specialization and breadth of understanding of general subjects within the educational unit.  Such wisdom of practice is demonstrated through candidate performance outcomes at several levels within individual courses and within our assessment system.  For example, lesson plans include attention to the needs of diverse learners and those with exceptionalities who might require modification of activities to accommodate optimal learning.  Our candidates use a variety of strategies to encourage the learner's development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.  They continually evaluate the impact of instructional decisions on student learning as well as the effectiveness of classroom management practices.  Formal and informal assessments are used throughout programs to ensure authentic student learning. 

1d. Candidate proficiencies related to expected knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions, including proficiencies associated with diversity and technology, that are aligned with the expectations in professional, state, and institutional standards 

The faculty and staff at Southeastern strive to model the professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions candidates learn through programs in the COEHD.  The high expectations for candidates at the undergraduate and graduate levels are mirrored in the high expectations of qualified faculty at Southeastern and their commitment for a positive impact on student achievement.  They design courses that are clearly articulated, systematically delivered, and consistently assessed.  The CF provides direction for our programs, courses, field experiences, assessments, and performance outcomes.  Each of the four components of the CF represents an important component of our belief system.  However, we recognize that together, the four components and the integration of diversity and technology complete the framework that provides direction for us to prepare candidates to become effective professionals who will continue to set the standard for excellence through best practice. 

Our candidates have the opportunity to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become effective professionals because our programs are standards-based.  (See Professional Standards section of this report.)

The unit values professional dispositions that set our candidates apart.  Attributes such as communication, collaboration, and leadership skills help us set the standard for excellence in our candidates through best practices.  The Professional Attributes and Characteristics Scale is used throughout our programs and outlines the dispositions we value in teachers and other school personnel. Candidates use effective communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration and supportive interaction in the classroom to accomplish optimal student learning.  These dispositions are particularly important for school leaders as they what? and leadership skills to achieve what? (Edie and Ken help!) 

We feel professional development should be ongoing and continuous throughout an effective professional’s career at every level.  (Link to portals requiring professional development hours before candidate can progress to next level—this is our commitment!)  Add information about professional dispositions from leadership and counseling.  Additional support is provided to candidates identified with special needs through the Teacher Development Program.

These Diversity Proficiencies based on Pritchy Smith—see Standard 4.  
1. Designs, accommodates, assesses, and/or modifies instruction appropriate for students from diverse backgrounds and their stages of development, learning styles, strengths, and needs.
2. Selects approaches that provide opportunities for students to present their understanding in multiple forms.
3.  Assesses, when appropriate, services and/or resources to meet diverse learning needs.
4. Creates equitable learning communities that enhance student learning and demonstrate respect for individual differences. 

The unit provides opportunities for candidates to understand the role of diversity and equity in the teaching and learning process.  Our learning community is comprised of programs in which our candidates demonstrate and value sensitivity to the needs of all learners.  The effective professional can help all students learn and can teach from multicultural and global perspectives that draw on the histories, experiences, and representations of students from diverse cultural backgrounds.  (Link to Standard 4)  Diversity is an integral part of our programs, and the COEHD demonstrates its commitment in several ways.  An outcome of this commitment are required undergraduate and graduate courses designed to address diversity. Other examples include course assignments that focus candidates on learners' individual needs, field experiences in diverse settings, an active student chapter of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) (link to that site), and Project IMPACT (Enriching Content Classes for Elementary and Secondary English Language Learners).

http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Education/TEC/esl/project_impact.htm

Additionally, each semester, the Dean of the COEHD hosts Diversity Conversations, which are lecture series designed to inform participants about various topics on interest.  Faculty and candidates are encouraged to attend, and evaluations and reflective writings capture participants' reactions to the discussions. Also, lectures and presentations are offered by the University for faculty and candidates to attend. 

As demonstrated throughout this report, technology is emphasized in all programs and is used to support and improve student learning.  Educational technology for instructional and assessment purposes is infused in coursework to promote candidates’ learning and competence.  Assessments ensure their effective use of technology for teaching, learning, and leadership activities.  Use of technology is assessed in individual courses and through LCET evaluations.  Portal assessments include technology use.  NETS (from ISTE) are used in the ELT department—get particulars from Nan Adams?  Technology workshops for faculty are offered each semester by the COEHD and by the University Center for Faculty Excellence.  Candidates are trained in and use our online PASS-PORT assessment system to submit online portfolios.  In-service opportunities are offered on an on-going basis, and data from evaluations is used to inform future topics and levels of expertise of faculty and candidates.  Levels of expectations increase as candidates progress through programs.  A Use of Technology (get correct title) survey is completed in introductory courses and again as an exit survey when candidates leave student teaching.  This gives us pre/post data on candidates’ technology skills.  Analysis of data indicates and what do we do if not sufficient—remediation courses, etc.

Southeastern and the COEHD offer many distance education courses to meet the diverse needs of our candidates.  Shall we say the MAT program could be taken completely online at one point during this time period?  Also, a high percentage of on-campus courses use Blackboard (an online learning environment) to enhance course content.  Making Connections website designed by the Louisiana Department of Education offers lesson plans that integrate technology for teachers, etc. etc. examples.  Information from Standard 6 on this one about technology in classrooms, student labs, etc. 

1e. Description of unit’s assessment system 

The COEHD CF provides a systematic approach for coherence within the unit.  Curriculum, instruction, field and clinical experiences, candidate and program assessments, and professional development activities are impacted by the components and integrated themes of the CF.

Field Experiences decisions are based on the components and themes of the CF.  Diverse settings, varied experiences, etc., are structured to reflect the components of the CF.  Field experiences reflect competencies that are aligned with the CF.

Assessment results are used to improve the program on multiple levels:

a)  By the instructor to further guide and refine the candidate’s understanding of the concept of knowledge of the learner.

b)  By the instructor to identify strengths and weaknesses in individual course instruction to use as a basis for planning the next class, and

c)  By the department to show overall strengths and weaknesses for the dual purpose of reporting to SPAs and/or national certification organizations and for assessing program weaknesses for review and revision. 

The framework incorporates a system of assessment throughout the unit for evaluating candidates’ progress and individual needs. Introductory, developing, and competency levels of field-based experiences in diverse settings culminate in the professional semester of student teaching in the Department of T&L.  Emerging, proficiency, and capstone levels of field-based experiences in diverse settings culminate in the practicum and intern professional semesters in the T&L graduate programs. Candidates moving into practicum and internship semesters are guided with a Counseling Program Handbook in the Department of C&HD.  (http://blackboard.selu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?cours_id=_8505_1) (This site address received from Mary Ballard, 3/28/07-I couldn’t get into it…jl)

 Assessment of Southeastern’s teacher candidates’ pedagogical knowledge is aligned with the Louisiana Components of Effective Teaching, designed by the Louisiana State Department of Education.  (These components are organized into five domains, including planning, management, instruction, school improvement, and professional development (http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/5564.pdf), and candidates are assessed by instructors through the use of an instrument designed to measure competencies in the areas of planning, management, instruction, and assessment in methods classes and at the student teaching level.

Undergraduate candidates are required to develop a professional portfolio at each of three portals in the initial certification programs:  introductory, developing, and competency.  Graduate programs also require a professional portfolio that continues the portals started in initial certification areas. Each portfolio must contain artifacts that support the achievement of skills described in the various standards.  For example, an initial lesson plan is required in the introductory portfolio, and an implemented lesson plan and an assessment plan is required in both the developing and competency level portfolios.

Candidates are required to design lessons that will meet the PK-12 Louisiana Content Standards and Benchmarks (http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde//saa/1222.html).  These standards and benchmarks reflect the national standards for the specific subject discipline as outlined by the corresponding professional organizations.  Complete lesson plans written by teacher candidates in the Department of Teaching and Learning must identify the benchmarks being taught through that lesson and must assess student learning through performance outcomes.  Plans include accommodations and modifications as well as technology integration into the lesson.  Graduate candidates conduct and present action research and include the research as an artifact.  Standards are connected to the research in reflective writings that accompany each artifact.  Course instructors evaluate individual artifacts, and the portfolio is reviewed by an assigned faculty member upon completion of each of the three portfolio levels.

As candidates progress toward program completion, they move through a seamless curriculum with coursework that provides content knowledge and the use of technology.  Goals and objectives of required educational courses are aligned with the components and themes of the CF.  Cohesion is a vital part of programs throughout the unit and is demonstrated by candidates completing courses in sequence which build on an integrative focus.  This cohesive sequencing of courses begins in the required prerequisite courses and continues throughout all other core course work.  Experiences build from introduction to application and include introductory, developing, and competency levels in initial certification programs and emerging, proficiency, and capstone levels in graduate programs.  Each candidate's progress through a program is documented in an online portfolio (via PASS-PORT) that is assessed by an assigned faculty advisor. Benchmarks are in place within the assessment system to ensure candidates have successfully achieved expectations before advancing to the next level.  Institutional, state, and national assessments are included in the system. Flo:  Would examples of things we have done strengthen this section?  For example, SPED re-design used CF and we can link to that. 

2b. (continuing visits) changes to the CF since previous visit. 

The following information is a summary of activities surrounding the development of the Conceptual Framework as it is Fall, 2007.  More details can be found in the CF Minutes.

2002-2003:  In the spring of the 2002-2003 academic year, a new Conceptual Framework (CF) task force was appointed by the Dean of the College of Education and Human Development (COEHD).  The team was made up of faculty from each of the three departments in the college (Teaching & Learning (T&L), Educational Leadership & Technology (ELT), and Counseling & Human Development (CHD).  They began the task of determining what needed to be done to revise the conceptual framework so that it would better represent the mission, vision, philosophy, values, and beliefs of the unit.  

The CF team reviewed recommendations from the Spring 2002 NCATE site visit and brought ideas from the perspectives of the three departments for discussion.  Five areas of concern were identified: 

1)  The current CF was written to the department of Teaching and Learning, and it did not represent the departments of Educational Leadership & Technology or Counseling & Human Development.

2)  Faculty and students had voiced concern that the CF components were difficult to understand.

3)  Diversity was not clearly articulated as an integral part of the program.

4)  The integration of technology throughout the program was not stressed.

5)  The graduate program was not included. 

The CF team initiated a self-study to determine faculty awareness of the CF and the integration of the four components of the Effective Educator in courses taught throughout the college.  A Conceptual Framework questionnaire was designed to obtain data to guide the revisions.  It was introduced to and approved by the COEHD Dean, Assistant Dean, Department Heads, and the Center for Education Services and Research.  The NCATE Standards Task Force leaders and the CF team members piloted the survey. (Spring 2003 Survey)  Suggestions and comments were incorporated into the questionnaire, and it was sent the to entire COEHD faculty for completion at the end of the spring, 2003, semester.  (Spring 2003 Survey Results) (Revised Spring 2003 Survey)  Because of a low number of responses, it was suggested by a department head that the questionnaire be administered again at the beginning of the fall semester at first faculty meetings.   

2003-2004:  The CF team used initial responses from the spring survey to determine that the questionnaire should be revised to include issues of diversity and technology. During the 2003-2004 academic year, the questionnaire was revised and sent to faculty members in the COEHD.  (Fall 2003 Survey)  Results were aggregated and the decision was made to revise the unit’s mission statement and the vision statement, as well as the CF components, descriptive statements, and graphic. (Fall 2003 Survey Results)  The mission and vision statements were re-written to align with the university's mission and to reflect a wider perspective for the COEHD.  (Mission and Vision Statements)

Survey results also indicated a majority of the faculty supported the notion that the original four components of the CF remain, but with revisions that would bring in all departmental programs and clearer definitions so that candidates, faculty, and partners would understand the purpose and importance of the CF.  For example, the term, The Effective Educator, was replaced with The Effective Professional to better represent the mission and vision for the college.  While candidates in the COEHD are prepared to become effective professionals, more specifically, effective educators are candidates in the Department of Teaching & Learning; effective school leaders are candidates in the Department of Educational Leadership & Technology; and effective school counselors are candidates in the Department of Counseling & Human Development.   

Of particular note was the outcome that diversity and technology not be separated into additional components but rather become themes that are an integral part of each of the four components.  These words were then added to the outside circle of the re-designed CF graphic to depict the integration throughout all programs of these themes. 

2004-2005:  During the Fall of the 2004-2005 academic year, the CF Task Force Team was re-organized to include different representatives of the COEHD and partners across campus.  Throughout this year, revisions were made based on feedback from faculty and administration (CF meetings, faculty meetings, steering committee meetings, informal conversations, etc.) to the CF descriptions, short narrative explanations, and the graphic of the components.  The CF team decided that a list of terms with definitions for the CF would help clarify previous misconceptions and assist the reader with understanding what a CF is and the meaning of specific terms in the context of our CF discussion.  A list was compiled and became a part of the revised CF package.  (List of Terms)  Consequently, the CF was evolving into a more comprehensive guide for us, and the graphic display became more representative of each aspect of the framework.  After the full faculty approved the revisions, the graphic design department was contacted to set the graphic to print, and bookmarks and posters were ordered so we could share CF information with candidates and others next year.  (CF Graphic)  

2005-2006:  During the Fall of the 2005-2006 academic year, the CF Task Force Team was re-organized to include different representatives of the COEHD and partners across campus.  The fall, 2005, semester served as a pilot for implementation of the revised CF, and faculty members agreed to begin aligning course syllabi objectives with the revised CF components, including diversity and technology, for the spring, 2006, semester.  The new CF information was posted to the Teaching & Learning web site (http://www.selu.edu/acad_research/depts/teach_lrn/index.html), portfolio assessments were updated, and the student teacher and MAT program student handbooks were re-designed to include the current CF information (Link to sites). 

An exciting outcome of collaboration with partner faculty resulted in a PowerPoint presentation that introduces the CF to faculty and candidates.  It is available to faculty via our Blackboard site.  (http://www.selu.edu/acad_research/colleges/edu_hd/about/conceptual_framework/index.html click on slide show)  College of Education and Human Development and partner faculty members were oriented to the CF by members of the CF team or by members of the NCATE Steering Committee, and everyone was asked to refrain from using and referring to the "old" CF information.  Bookmarks and posters were given to faculty and candidates and displayed throughout the COEHD to heighten awareness of the CF.  To continue to assess the impact of the CF, the team designed a survey to be sent to faculty next academic year via PASS-PORT. The CF team completed a draft of the Institutional Report including a comprehensive narrative for each component.  Those on the CF Team enjoyed this collaborative effort and opportunity to work with colleagues within the college and from across campus.  We feel the report is indicative of a better understanding of the unit’s standards and the importance of the conceptual framework in terms of how we carry out our mission. 

An example of work with a partner college resulted in the redesign of the Health and Physical Education (K-12) degree (this version of the degree first appearing in the 06-07 catalog).  Changes to the degree were made that were attempts to improve content knowledge, knowledge of learner, and professional standards.  Two new courses were added, KINL 221: Theories and Practice of Elementary School Physical Education (Introduction to curriculum content and activities in elementary physical education) and KINL 222: Theories and Practice of Teaching Dance (General knowledge, execution, and teaching methods of fundamentals in movement, creative dance, and social dance).  These changes were made to improve the delivery of content knowledge in PreK-12 classrooms, and to address professional standards (SPA).  Another course added was KIN 251: Motor Development and Movement (A study of motor development, movement and the child-centered approach to teaching movement in grades K-6.)  This course was added to improve curriculum in the area of knowledge of learner and to address professional standards. 

2006-2007:  During the Fall of the 2006-2007 academic year, the CF Task Force Team was re-organized to include different representatives of the COEHD and partners across campus.  We implemented suggestions from Dr. Blanchard’s visit in April, 2006, concerning the education and integration of the CF.  Use of the PowerPoint presentation was encouraged to orient new and adjunct faculty, to introduce candidates to the CF in introductory courses, and to refresh everyone's perspectives.  Analysis of the data collected from 04-05 and 05-06 candidate portfolios and exit reports resulted in revisions to the list of definitions (the Effective Professional added); revisions to the PowerPoint presentation (partners were more clearly defined); and stronger encouragement for faculty to use the PowerPoint presentation in courses as a refresher for candidates.  An introductory letter was designed to accompany the definitions and survey used to collect data.  (Fall 2006 Survey) 

The CF was presented to Professional Development School administrators and faculty by the Standard 3 chair.  The CF team suggested to the NCATE coordinator that university supervisors be designated as liaisons for cooperating teachers in the field in terms of articulating the CF to them.  As a result, a presentation was given to this group of faculty (including adjunct members), and they then introduced or updated classroom teachers about the current CF and gave them the CF survey.  Additional community partners were designated, and the CF and survey was shared with them as well (Region II Education Center, Chamber of Commerce Education Committee, and local school supply retail store).  The CF survey with a letter of explanation and the list of terms was sent to these partners for input and suggestions.  Data collected and analyzed indicates community partners are aware of and understand the concepts of the CF.  Additionally, the CF questionnaire was sent to COEHD faculty and partners across campus who had been trained to use PASS-PORT for feedback.  This data was reviewed and indicated that the components were clearly understood. (FALL 2006 Survey Results)

Several issues of concern were discovered and addressed as the process of sharing the CF within the unit and in the community continued throughout the year.  We found "old" CF information was on some web sites and had it replaced with current information.  A College of Nursing and Health Studies faculty member suggested we put more detailed explanations with the CF components on the graphic poster and bookmarks.  Because the design had already been approved and was “in print”, we chose to address this during our first semester after our current visit cycle is completed.  As suggested by Dr. Blanchard, the CF team requested that the NCATE coordinator assign someone the responsibility of reviewing course syllabi to ensure 1) the CF is clearly imbedded; 2) that varied assessments are used to ensure candidate acquisition of knowledge outcomes, skills, and dispositions; 3) that the CF knowledge base is reflected in courses; and 4) that courses address unit diversity and technology proficiencies.  This task was assigned throughout the departments. For example, in the Department of Teaching & Learning, the task was assigned to program chairmen. 

We continued to enjoy a collaborative effort as we worked on the CF Institutional Report revisions.  As members of the CF team, ELT and CHD faculty contributed additional narrative and theoretical support information along with T&L faculty.  Drafts were submitted for review and input to the NCATE coordinator to share the Dean's Advisory Council as well as to NCATE Steering Committee members (including partner college representatives) and SPA chairs.  They were asked to present the information to their committee members for further perspectives of the relevance of the CF to various programs.  This was an effort to expand each component and ensure that the CF is embedded throughout all programs.  Various members contributed information explaining how national and state standards are aligned with the CF.  (SPA charts)  (Minutes from CF Team Meetings)  Suggestions were incorporated by the CF team and sent to program committees within COEHD departments.  Comments and recommendations were incorporated into a draft sent to the Dean for further input and suggestions in April of 2007.  Of note is the example that involvement by our campus partners resulted in input for changes to the CF (in particular, colors on graphic and expansion of component explanations on the web site) which will be taken into consideration during the next cycle. 

2007-2008:  During the Fall of the 2007-2008 academic year, the CF Task Force Team was re-organized to include different representatives of the COEHD and partners across campus.

 In conclusion: 

The COEHD enjoys a cooperative relationship with its university and community partners as together we support candidate and student learning.  Standard task force memberships include partners from across campus working together in collaborative dialogue via monthly meetings.  Therefore, the CF continues to evolve as task force members share with others within the university, with various school personnel, and cooperating teachers.  For example, a steering committee member from the College of Science and Technology was actively involved in designing a PowerPoint presentation that is now used across campus for introducing the CF current and new faculty, adjunct faculty, and other word partners (http://www.selu.edu/acad_research/colleges/edu_hd/about/conceptual_framework/index.html click on slide show).  University supervisors are instrumental in introducing and orienting cooperating teachers in the field about the CF.  Responses from CF surveys help us assess understanding and appropriateness of the framework from partners within and outside the university.
 

The College of Education and Human Development Conceptual Framework Graphic

The four components of the CF along with the two integrated themes of diversity and technology are supported by established theoretical perspectives and research-driven practices.  Following is a list that details references and theoretical support for each department in the COEHD:

Conceptual Framework References and Theoretical Support

Department of Teaching and Learning 
Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.). (1991). Handbook of reading research: Volume II. New
York: Longman.

Bateman, D.F., Bright, K.L., O’Shea, D.L., O’Shea, L.J., & Algozzine, B. (2007). The special education program administrator’s handbook. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Berk, L. E. (2008). Infants and children. (6^th ed).  Boston:  Pearson.

Berliner, D. (1983). Developing conceptions of classroom environments:  Some light on the T in classroom studies of ATI. Educational Psychologist, 18, 1-13. 

Black, A., & Ammon, P. (1992). A developmental-constructivist approach to teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(5), 323-335. 

Blanton, L. (1992). Preservice Education: Essential Knowledge for the Effective Special Education Teacher. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15(2), 87-96. 

Bransford, J., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.  

Briggs, K. C., & Myers, I. B. (1998). Myers-Briggs type indicator (form M). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 

Brophy, J. (2000). Principles of effective teaching. (Education Research Reports). Michigan State University. Retrieved from the World Wide Web January 25, 2002: http://ed-web3.educ.msu.edu/reports/ed-researchrep/00/00sept-reprt3htm  

Burgess, R. (1998, April). The role of assessment in educating the reflective practitioner. Retrieved from http://home.istar.ca/~jnewman/Papers.html 

Burke, K. (1999). How to assess authentic learning (3^rd ed.). Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional Development. 

Carter, K. (1990). Teachers' knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York: Macmillan.

Cary, S. (2007). Working with second language learners: Answers to teachers' top ten questions (2^nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Currie, P., & Wadlington, E. (2000). The Source for Learning Disabilities. East Moline, IL: Linguisystems.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence.  University of Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development. Educational Research, 53 (6), 4-10.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln,Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3^rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Doyle, W. (1988). Learning to teach:  Directions from the current research base. Paper presented at the Association of Teacher Educators, San Diego, CA. 

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1993). Learning to teach. Lansing, MI: The Institute for Research on Teaching.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student teaching teacher education? Teaching & Teacher Education, 3(4), 256-273. 

Fosnot, C. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism:  Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teacher's College.

Fuhrman, S.H. (2001). From the Capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the States. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. 

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (2^nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. 

Gore, J. & Zeichner, K. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 119-136.

Gorrell, J. (2001). Reforming teacher education: New rhythms for the different drummer. In Small and Thomas (eds.), Plain talk about education: An education desk reference. Covington, LA: Center for Development and Learning. 

Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.

Grossman, P., & Richert, A. (1988). Unacknowledged knowledge growth:  A re-examination of the effects of teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4(1), 53-62. 

Group, H. (1990). Tomorrow's schools:  Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author. 

Henniger, M. (2005). Teaching young children: An introduction (3^rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Heward, W. L. (2006). Exceptional children (8^th ed.) Upper Saddle             River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Huling-Austin, L. (1992). Research on learning to teach:  Implications for teacher induction and mentoring programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 173-180. 

Hurley, S. R., & Tinajero, J. V. (2001). Literacy assessment of second languages learners. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 

Johnson, T. W., & Reed, R. F. (Eds). (2008). Philosophical documents in education (3^rd ed). Pearson Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA.

Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (2000). Handbook of reading research: Volume III. New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates. 

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Multi-cultural teacher education:  Research, practice, and policy. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 747-759). New York: Macmillan.

Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate.  Chelsea Green Publishing: White River Junction, VT.

Lindfors, J. (1984). How children learn or how teachers teach? A profound confusion. Language-Arts, 61(6), 600-06. 

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching America’s future. Woodridge, VA: The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Nelson, J. L., Palonsky, S. B., & McCarthy, M. R. (2004). Critical issues in education: Dialogues and dialectics. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.

Nieto, S. (2007). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of education (5^th ed.). New York: Longman.

Noddings, N. (1990). Constructivism in mathematics education. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph No. 4, 7-18. 

Peterson, P. L., & Comeaux, M. A. (1987). Teachers' schemata for classroom events:  The mental scaffolding of teachers' thinking during classroom instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4), 319-331. 

Ramirez, M. (1999). Multicultural psychotherapy: An approach to individual and cultural differences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 

Ravitch, D. (1995). National standards in American education: A citizen’s guide. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.  

Reynolds, C. R., & Gutkin, T. B. (Eds.). (1999). The handbook of school psychology (3^rd ed.).  New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Richard-Amato, Patricia A. (2003).  Making it happen:  From interactive to participatory language teaching (3^rd ed.). Longman.

Rovegno, I. (1993). The development of curricular knowledge:  A case of problematic pedagogical content knowledge during advanced knowledge acquisition. Research Quarterly for Exercise Sport, 64(1), 56-68.

Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (Eds.). (2004). Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 

Ruddell, R. B., Ruddell, M. R., & Singer, H. (Eds.). (1994). Theoretical models and processes of reading (4^th ed.). Newark: International Reading Association.

Samway, K. D. & McKeon, D.  (2007). Myths and realities: Best practices for English language learners (2^nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (2000). Schools fit for all. Educational Leadership, 58(4), 34-39.

Sapon-Shevin, M., & Zollers, N. J. (1999). Multicultural and disability agendas in teacher education:  Preparing teachers for diversity. Leadership in Education, 2(3), 165-190. 

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shore, E. & Grace, C. (2005).  The portfolio book: A step-by-step guide for teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, February, 4-14. 

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching:  Foundations for a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1-22). 

Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (2005). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6^th ed.). London: Prentice-Hall.

Spradlin, L. K., & Parsons, R. D.  (2008). Diversity Matters: Understanding Diversity in Schools.  Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Thinking styles. Cambridge, England: University Press.

Strommen, E., & Lincoln, B. (1992). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning, www.ilt.columbia.edu/k12/livetext/docs/construct.html. 

Taggart, G., & Wilson, A. (1998). Promoting reflective thinking in teachers: 44 action strategies. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 

Tompkins, G. E. (2005).  Language arts: Patterns of practice. (6^th ed.).  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Turnbull, R., Turnbull, A., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2007).  Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools (5^th ed.).  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (2007). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (9th ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. 

Wood, D. (1998). How children think and learn:  The social contexts and cognitive development (2^nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. 

Wood, J. W. (2002). Adapting instruction to accommodate students in inclusive settings. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Wortham, S. (2008). Assessment in early childhood education (5^th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B. (1987). Individual, institutional, and cultural influences on the development of teachers' craft knowledge. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers' thinking. Great Britain: Cassell.

Zeichner, K. M. (1997). Educating teachers for cultural diversity. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

                              Conceptual Framework References and Theoretical Support
                                  Department of Educational Leadership and Technology

Bottoms, G., & O’Neill, K. (April, 2001). Preparing a new breed of principals: It’s time for action. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. (01V17) Monograph retrieved April 2, 2006 from http://www.sreb.org/main/Leadership/pubs/01V17_Time_for_Action.pdf.

Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2004). Principals excellence program: Developing effective school leaders through unique university-district partnership. NCPEA Education Leadership Review, 5 (2), 24-36.

Capasso, R. L. & Daresh, J. C. (2001). The School Administrator Internship Handbook. Corwin Press. Thousand Oaks, CA

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute in conjunction with the finance project commissioned by the Wallace Foundation.

Fry, B., O’Neill, K. & Bottoms, G. (2006). Schools can’t wait: Accelerating the redesign of university principal preparation programs. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Grogan, M. & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233-256.

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-351.

Hess, F. M., & Kelly, P. M. (2005, Summer). The accidental principal. Education Next. (No.3). Hoover Institution, Leland Stanford Junior University. Retrieved May 17, 2006, from http://www.educationnext.org/20053/34.html

Hill-Winstead, M. F. & Stader, D. (2004, April). Responding to the challenge of reforming leadership preparation programs: A standards based preparation pyramid. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

King, D. (2002). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 61-63.
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-40.
Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational leadership (Rev. ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education, Laboratory for Student Success. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from www.temple.edu/lss/pdf/Leithwood.pdf.

Levine, A. (March, 2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.
¹Louisiana Educational Leaders Network. (2005) Educational Leadership Certification Structure. Retrieved May 24, 2006 from http://www.leadlouisiana.net/site10001/1001669/docs/ed_leadership_certification_structure.pdf.

Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.

Mazzeo, C. (September 12, 2003). Issue brief of the Educational Policy Studies Division, National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. Washington, DC: Wallace Foundation, National Governors’ Association.

Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of principal preparation: Reframing the education of school administrators. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Portin, B. S., Knapp, M., Murphy, J., & Beck, L. (2003). Self-reflective renewal in schools. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Southworth, G. & Doughty, J. (2006). A fine British blend. Educational Leadership, 63(8), 51.  Stader, D. (April, 2003). A framework for reflection and clarifying dispositions. Paper presented at the Louisiana Association of Professors of Educational Administration. Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, Louisiana.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002, January 8). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. [Online].
Available: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.

Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What thirty years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved April 2, 2006, from www.mcrel.org/topics/productDetail.asp?topicsID=7&productID=144.

West, R. F. (November 7, 2003). Integrating the SREB modules into the principal preparation program at East Tennessee State University: A progress report. Paper prepared for the University Continuing Education Association Convention, Learning for Leadership and Leadership for Learning. Portland, OR.

                               Conceptual Framework References and Theoretical Support
                                         Department of Counseling & Human Development 

Baker, S. B., & Gerler, E. (2004).  School counseling for the twenty-first century (4th ed.).  Englewood Cliffs, NJ:  Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Cobia, D., & Henderson, D.  (2003).  Handbook of school counseling.  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Gysbers, N., & Henderson, P. (1994).  Developing and managing your school guidance program.  Alexandria, VA:  American Counseling Association.

Kampwirth, T. (2006).  Collaborative consultation in the schools.   Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Thompson, L. C., & Rudolph, L. B., Henderson, D. (2004).  Counseling children.  (6^th ed.) Pacific Grove, CA:  Brooks/Cole.