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.
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.
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. (6th 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 (3rd
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 (2nd 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 (3rd 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 (2nd 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
(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Heward,
W. L. (2006). Exceptional children (8th 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 (3rd 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 (5th 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 (3rd ed.). New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Richard-Amato, Patricia A. (2003). Making it happen: From
interactive to participatory language teaching (3rd
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 (4th ed.).
Newark: International Reading Association.
Samway,
K. D. & McKeon, D. (2007). Myths and realities: Best practices
for English language learners (2nd 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 (6th 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.
(6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Turnbull, R., Turnbull, A., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2007).
Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools (5th
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 (2nd 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 (5th
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. (6th ed.) Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
|