Draft – Revised Conceptual Framework – 4-30-2010



Conceptual Framework

Vision of the State Board/Board of Regents

Our vision is to improve the education system to a level of effectiveness that allows all learners to develop their full potential as individuals and contributors to society.

University of Idaho Vision

We will be a leader among land-grant and flagship institutions in the 21st century by promoting an entrepreneurial spirit; embracing the contributions of multiple cultures, identities, and perspectives; and bringing together the talents and enthusiasm of faculty, staff and students. We will be widely recognized as a creative university that is both environmentally and fiscally sustainable and is an engaged partner in addressing the changing needs of our stakeholders in Idaho, the nation and the world.

University of Idaho Mission

The University of Idaho will formulate its academic plan and generate programs with primary emphasis on agriculture, natural resources, metallurgy, engineering, architecture, law, foreign languages, teacher preparation and international programs related to the foregoing. The University of Idaho will give continuing emphasis in the areas of business, education liberal arts and physical, life, and social sciences, which also provide the core curriculum or general education portion of the curriculum.

College of Education Vision

The College of Education envisions being a leading, diverse, nationally recognized educational community. Our caring faculty members and innovative curriculum are:

• Preparing professionals through integrated programs grounded in research

• Generating and evaluating knowledge through disciplinary and interdisciplinary scholarship

• Informing professional practice and community life through the exchange and utilization of knowledge

Together, our college community is achieving this vision through a culture of openness, innovation, and collaboration.

College of Education Mission

The College of Education enriches lives by advancing excellence in research and practice in education, leadership, and applied human arts and sciences (adopted January 27, 2005).

Conceptual Framework

University of Idaho educators CARE. Together we develop as scholar practitioners who value, professionally apply, and advance:

Cultural Proficiency;

Assessment, Teaching, and Learning;

Reflective Scholarship and Practice; and,

Engagement in Community Building and Partnerships. 

Introduction

The University Of Idaho College Of Education’s conceptual framework is part of our shared vision for preparing educators to effectively work in P-12 schools as well as other professionals working toward healthy, active living. It provides direction for programs, courses, teaching, candidate performance, scholarship, service, and accountability.

Our conceptual framework is knowledge-based, well-articulated, shared widely, coherent, and consistent with the college’s and university’s mission and vision. It is continuously evaluated, using both direct and indirect assessments and evaluations, and it is constantly in process. It represents our values and beliefs, and informs the process by which we develop and work toward well-articulated goals.

With deliberation, we have chosen the acronym CARE to remind us all of the core values and beliefs that drive the thoughts and feelings of individuals and the college as a whole. Why CARE? Because as Kroth & Keeler (2009) write:

[Caring] is helping another person to grow. People tend [Mayeroff (1971)] to order their values and activities around caring. Caring is not parasitic, dominating, or possessive, but a wanting for the other to grow. The person who cares also grows in that process and feels the other person as needing him or her. Devotion, or a commitment to the other person, is essential and possible because of the worth perceived in the other. With devotion comes obligation. Through caring … people find meaning in their lives. (p. 508)

Alignment with University of Idaho Vision and Professional and State Standards

Our conceptual framework is aligned with the University of Idaho Strategic Action Plan, the Idaho State Department of Education’s Ten Core Standards for Teacher Preparation Programs (2007) (See Appendix I), and with the Four Domains of Charlotte Danielson’s, Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching (2007) (See Appendix II).

The Idaho State Standards were developed by an eclectic group representing teachers, parents, administrators, business people, and state certification personnel, and are based on NCATE Standards. In addition, the Danielson domains were selected by the State Superintendent for Public Instruction as a model for evaluating inservice teachers. As a result, the conceptual framework uses the Danielson domains (Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities) for the evaluation of candidate proficiencies and expectations of candidate performance, and these, in turn, flow from the conceptual framework’s purpose and goals. See Table 1 for alignment with our conceptual framework, University of Idaho (UI) Outcomes, Idaho Teacher Education Core Standards, and Danielson Domains.

Table 1. Alignment of Source Standards with the Conceptual Framework

|Conceptual Framework |UI Student Outcomes |Idaho Core Standards for Teacher Preparation |Danielson Domains for Professional|

|Goals | | |Practice |

|Cultural Proficiency |Practice citizenship |Idaho Core Standards 1 through 10 |Domains 1 through 4 |

|Assessment, Teaching & |Learn and integrate |Idaho Core Standards 1 through 8 |Domains 1 through 4 |

|Learning |Think and create | | |

| |Communicate | | |

|Reflective Practice |Clarify purpose and perspective |Idaho Core Standards 8 & 9 |Domains 1, 3 and 4 |

|Engagement in Community |Practice citizenship |Idaho Core Standard 10 |Domains 1 and 4 |

|Building & Partnerships | | | |

Philosophy, Knowledge Base and Professionally Sound Commitments and Dispositions:

CARE

Cultural Proficiency

Philosophy:  We believe that diversity enriches the learning environment and that all individuals have worth and should be treated with dignity and respect.  We welcome a variety of cultural, economic, and experiential backgrounds including, but not limited to, variation with respect to language, race, culture, religious belief, gender, sexual orientation, age, ability, veteran status, and geographical location (Tomlinson, 2003). A cultural proficiency approach best informs our preparation of educators in the area of diversity; it does not simply prize the individual, but focuses on the culture of an organization.

Cultural proficiency is reflected in the way an organization treats its employees, its constituents, and its community. Administrators, teachers, staff, parents, students, and the community welcome and create opportunities to better understand who they are as individuals while learning how to interact positively with people who differ from themselves. In summary, cultural proficiency is the policies and practices of the organization, or the values and behaviors of an individual, which enable that agency or person to interact effectively in a culturally diverse environment (Lindsey, Roberts & Terrell, 2003).

Professional Commitments and Dispositions: We endeavor to promote the development of educators and other professionals who can be secure in their identities, acknowledge their predispositions, biases, and limitations, and actively and critically engage in culturally proficient leadership and teaching.

University of Idaho educators embrace a cultural proficiency approach, or an inside-out approach, to developing harmony and unity through diversity. This approach thinks about those who are insiders in the organization, and encourages reflection on self-understandings and values. It relieves those identified as outsiders—members of excluded or marginalized groups—from the responsibility of doing all the adapting. This approach acknowledges and respects the current values and feelings of people, and encourages change without threatening feelings of worth.

Culturally proficient leaders and teachers begin with accepting and valuing each student and acknowledging what each student brings to the community (Zaretsky, 2004). They nurture development, individual ability, and talent while creating an equitable classroom environment. Culturally proficient leaders confidently deliver programs and services, knowing that their community of learners genuinely value diversity (Portin, 2004). Teachers, administrators, school counselors, support staff, and related professionals show respect to one another and to collective efforts in order to educate every student. When all participants are deeply involved in the developmental process, there is broader-based ownership, making commitment to change more likely (Roach, 1995).

As a result, in a culturally proficient organization, the culture of the organization promotes inclusiveness and institutionalizes processes for learning about differences and for responding appropriately to those differences (Gartner, & Kerzner Lipsky, 1998; Villa & Thousand, 2003; Sapon-Shevin, 2003). In an organization, it is the organizational policies and practices that reflect a positive diverse environment. In an individual, it is one’s values and behaviors that enable effective and helpful interaction in a diverse environment (Lindsey, Roberts & CambellJones, 2005).

Relationship to Idaho State Core Teacher Standards & Danielson Framework

Cultural Proficiency is embedded in, and related to, each of the core standards for teacher preparation programs, and, as a result, all of Danielson’s four domains. Educators and leaders who meet all ten standards and all four domains are most likely well aligned with the philosophy, professional commitments, and dispositions associated with cultural proficient teaching and leading.

Standard 1: Knowledge of Subject Matter

Standard 2: Knowledge of Human Development and Learning

Standard 3: Modifying Instruction for Individual Needs

Standard 4: Multiple Instructional Strategies

Standard 5: Classroom Motivation and Management Skills

Standard 6: Communication Skills

Standard 7: Instructional Planning Skills

Standard 8: Assessment of Student Learning

Standard 9: Professional Commitment and Responsibility

Standard 10: Partnerships

Danielson Framework – Candidate proficiencies and expectations of candidate performance that address all ten Core Teacher Standards

|Framework Component |Description of Teacher Performance |

|Domain 1 |Planning and Preparation |

|1a |Demonstrates knowledge of content and pedagogy |

|1b |Demonstrates knowledge of students |

|1c |Sets instructional outcomes |

|1d |Demonstrates knowledge of resources |

|1e |Designs coherent instruction |

|1f |Designs student assessments |

|Domain 2 |The Classroom Environment |

|2a |Creates an environment of respect and rapport |

|2b |Establishes a culture for learning |

|2c |Manages classroom procedures |

|2d |Manages student behavior |

|2e |Organizes physical space |

|Domain 3 |Instruction |

|3a |Communicates with students |

|3b |Uses questioning and discussion techniques |

|3c |Engages students in learning |

|3d |Uses assessment in instruction |

|3e |Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness |

|Domain 4 |Professional Responsibilities |

|4a |Reflects on teaching |

|4b |Maintains accurate records |

|4c |Communicates with families |

|4d |Participates in a professional community |

|4e |Grows and develops professionally |

|4f |Shows professionalism |

References

Cross, T. L., Bazron, B. J., Dennis, K. W. & Isaacs, M. R. (1989). Towards A Culturally Competent System Of Care: Volume 1 - A Monograph on Effective Services for Minority Children Who Are Severely Emotionally Disturbed. Washington: CASSP Technical Assistance Center Georgetown University Child Development Center.

Dover, W. (1999). Inclusion: The Next Step Managing Diversity of Needs in the Classroom. Manhattan, Kansas: The Master Teacher, Inc.

Gartner, A. & Kerzner Lipsky, D. (1998). Inclusive Education – Mainstreaming all of America’s children. Social Policy, 28, (No. 3), 73-76.

Disabilities Education Act. NCERI Bulletin, Spring 1998. National Center of Education: Restructuring and Inclusion, 2, (No. 2) 2-5.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments 1997, 2002. In. Retrieved April 17, 2005, from ): President's Commissions in Special Education. 2002.

Kroth, M. & Keeler, C. (2009). Caring as a Managerial Strategy. Human Resource Development Review. 8(4) 506–531.

Lindsey, R. B.; Roberts, L. M.; CambellJones, F. (2005). The Culturally Proficient School: An Implementation Guide for School Leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lindsey, R. B.; Roberts, L. M.; Terrell, R. D. (2003). Cultural Proficiency: A Manual for School Leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mayeroff, M. (1971). On caring (1st U.S. ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Patterson, J. P. a. J. (April 2004). Sharing The Lead. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 74-78.

Portin, B. (2004). The Roles That Principals Play. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 14-18.

Roach, V. (1995). Supporting Inclusion; Beyond the Rhetoric. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(4), 295-299.

Robins, K. N.; Lindsey, R. B.; Lindsey, D. B.; Terrell, R. D. (2002). Culturally Proficient Instruction: A Guide for People Who Teach. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003). Inclusion: A Matter of Social Justice. Educational Leadership, 61(No.2), 25-28.

Sergiovanni, T. (2004). Building a Community of Hope – At the heart of each school, a realistic optimism must prevail. Educational Leadership: journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.E.A., 61 (No. 8), 33-39.

Sergiovanni, T. (2005). Strengthening The Heartbeat: Leading and Learning Together in Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Deciding to Teach Them All. Educational Leadership, 61 (No. 2), 6-11.

Villa, R. & Thousand, J. (2003). Making Inclusive education Work. Educational Leadership, 61 (No.2), 19-23.

Villa, R. & Thousand, J. (2005). Creating an Inclusive School. (2nd Ed.). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Supervision.

Zaretsky, L. (2004). Advocacy and administration: From conflict to collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2), 270.

CARE

Assessment, Teaching, and Learning

Philosophy:  We believe assessment, teaching, and learning are interrelated, intrinsically linked, and cyclical in nature. The cycle begins with assessment of prior learning, which informs meaningful teaching and, in turn, produces measurable learning that when assessed, informs further instruction. The spiral continues as knowledgeable educators apply the sciences and arts of assessment, teaching, and learning. In summary, assessment, teaching and learning are what we do in education, and it can be expressed as a spiraling cycle, as Bransford, Brown & Cocking (2000) suggest:

[pic]

Professional Commitments and Dispositions: We endeavor to promote the development of educators and leaders who acknowledge and respect the alignment between assessment, teaching and learning, and who can systematically apply and advance each element of the cycle in concert with the other.

Assessment:

Assessment is generally viewed as an educator's professional judgment of a student’s academic achievement in relation to the form and content of a course and its intended outcomes. Rather than considering assessment in isolation, educators may be better served to think of assessment, evaluation, and reporting together as parts of a cycle that provide information about individual students, the teacher, the unit of study, and the learning environment. It is probably wise to base assessment, evaluation, and reporting practices on sound educational principles that reflect and dignify the student’s academic achievement (Gathercoal, 1995).

University of Idaho educators and leaders use assessment to direct student learning, use valid tools to measure student achievement, and evaluate their own instructional effectiveness consistent with state standards, course objectives, and exemplary models of teaching (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Danielson, 2009). By intentionally examining and challenging prior beliefs and conceptions about assessment, educators extend their understanding and use of multiple forms of assessment (Goc Karp & Woods, 2008). They anticipate and are responsive to individual needs, pluralistic perspectives, and developmentally appropriate instruction (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Assessment positively impacts teaching and curriculum through its alignment to standards and the auditing of student performance (English, 1992), thereby creating data from multiple sources, students, teachers anecdotal records, teacher-made tests, and normative tests (Hoy & Hoy, 2003).

Authentic Assessment and Web-based Folio Systems:

A primary focus of portfolio assessment is authentic assessment. (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Zemelman & Daniels, 1998). Web-based folio systems facilitate authentic assessment practices complementary with portfolio assessment; program and instructor evaluation complementary with evaluative observations used to inform instruction in standards-based teaching and learning settings; and authentic reporting of student academic achievement complementary with the practice of sharing student showcase and growth portfolios.

At the University of Idaho, we have adopted the use of web-based folio systems. Educators aggregate and disaggregate data and use those data to inform the assessment, teaching, and learning process at multiple levels of examination, such as individual, course, program, department, college, and university.

Teaching:

University of Idaho educators and leaders continually engage in reflection and professional development, and demonstrate a willingness to collaborate with others to promote student learning (Danielson, 2000, 2007, 2009; Sato, Kern, McDonald & Rogers, 2010). They embrace doctrines of service, ethical behavior, citizenship, and community fellowship (Gage, 1978; Glickman, 2010). Professional educators motivate and support learners (Hunter, 1982; Joyce & Weil, 2000), and develop, implement, and evaluate learning environments conducive to cognitive, affective and psychomotor development (Bloom, 1956). Moreover, Idaho educators envision good teaching as a comprehensive repertoire of learner-centered teaching strategies (Marzano, 1998; Caine, 1991).

Learning:

University of Idaho educators and leaders understand that learning is the end product of education (Marzano, Brandt, Hughes, Jones, Presseisen, Rankin & Suhor , 1998; Lambert, 1998). As such they understand how and when to employ a variety of instructional strategies and customize curricula to elicit optimal engagement for all students, including multicultural perspectives and special considerations (Kagan, 1992; Smoker, 2006; Mellard & Johnson, 2008). They embrace tenets of best practice informed by research known to foster student success (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000).

Relationship to Idaho State Core Teacher Standards

Assessment, teaching, and learning is embedded in and related to the first eight core standards for teacher preparation and complementary areas in all four domains of Danielson’s model. Educators and leaders who meet these standards and domains are probably able to employ the spiraling cycle of assessment, teaching, and learning and share responsibility for student academic achievement, thereby increasing the number of successful students and disseminating the knowledge base widely throughout society.

Standard 1: Knowledge of Subject Matter

Standard 2: Knowledge of Human Development and Learning

Standard 3: Modifying Instruction for Individual Needs

Standard 4: Multiple Instructional Strategies

Standard 5: Classroom Motivation and Management Skills

Standard 6: Communication Skills

Standard 7: Instructional Planning Skills

Standard 8: Assessment of Student Learning

Danielson Framework – Candidate proficiencies and expectations of candidate performance that address the first eight core teaching standards

|Framework Component |Description of Teacher Performance |

|Domain 1 |Planning and Preparation |

|1a |Demonstrates knowledge of content and pedagogy |

|1b |Demonstrates knowledge of students |

|1c |Sets instructional outcomes |

|1d |Demonstrates knowledge of resources |

|1e |Designs coherent instruction |

|1f |Designs student assessments |

|Domain 2 |Classroom Environment |

|2a |Creates an environment of respect and rapport |

|2b |Establishes a culture for learning |

|2c |Manages classroom procedures |

|2d |Manages student behavior |

|2e |Organizes physical space |

|Domain 3 |Instruction |

|3a |Communicates with students |

|3b |Uses questioning and discussion techniques |

|3c |Engages students in learning |

|3d |Uses assessment in instruction |

|3e |Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness |

|Domain 4 |Professional Responsibilities |

|4a |Reflects on teaching |

|4b |Maintains accurate records |

|4c |Communicates with families |

References

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R., eds. (2000). How People Learn. Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Caine, R. N. & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections. Teaching and the Human Brain. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Danielson, C. (2009). Talk About Teaching! Leading Professional Conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Danielson, C. (2000). Teacher Evaluation To Enhance Professional Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J. & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic Assessment in Action, Studies of Schools and Students at Work. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Gage, N.L. (1978). The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Gathercoal, P. (1995). Principles of assessment. The Clearing House, 69(1) 59-61.

Gathercoal, P., Love, D., & McKean, G. (2003). ProfPort webfolio system: Implementation, curriculum and assessment. Paper presented at the 2003 Educause Annual Conference: Balancing Opportunities, Expectations, and Resources, in Anaheim, California, USA.

Gathercoal, P. & Gathercoal, F. (2007). The Judicious Professor. San Francisco: Caddo Gap Press.

Glickman, C.D., Gordon, S.P. & Ross-Gordon, J.M. (2010). SuperVision and Instructional Leadership, A Developmental Approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Goc Karp, G., & Woods, M.L. (2008). PTs Perceptions about Assessment and its Implementation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(3), 327-346.

Hoy, A. W. & Hoy, W.K. (2003). Instructional Leadership, A Learning-Centered Guide. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery Teaching. El Segundo, CA: TIP Publications.

Jenkins, L. (1997). Improving Student Learning, Applying Deming’s Quality Principles in Classrooms. Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality.

Joyce, B., Weil, M. & Calhou, E. (2000). Models of Teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative Learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.

Kroth, M. & Boverie, P. (Feb. 2000). Life Mission and Adult Learning. Adult Education Quarterly. 50(2) 134-149.

Kroth, M. & Boverie, P. (2009). Using the Discovering Model to Facilitate Transformational Learning and Career Development. Journal of Adult Learning. 38(1) 43-47.

Lambert, L. (1998). Building Leadership Capacity in Schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R., Hughes, C.S., Jones, B.F., Presseisen, B.Z., Rankin, S.C. & Suhor, C. (1998). Dimensions of Thinking: A Framework for Curriculum and Instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Mellard, D.F. & Johnson, E. (2008). RTI A Practitioner’s Guide to Implementing Response to Intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Orlich, D., Harder, R., Callahan, R., Trevisan, M.S. & Brown, A. H. (2004). Teaching Strategies, A Guide to Effective Instruction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Sato, M. D., Kern, A. L., McDonald, E. J., & Rogers, C. A. (2010). On the inside looking out: Instantiations of the practical. Teacher Education and Practice, 23 (1).  

Schmoker, M. (2006). Results Now, How We Can Achieve Unprecedented Improvements in Teaching and Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Showers, B. & Showers, B. (1995). Student Achievement Through Staff Development, Fundamentals of School Renewal. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative Learning. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.

Sparks, D. & Hirsch, S. (1997). A New Vision for Staff Development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H. & Hyde, A. (1998). Best Practice, New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America’s Schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., Kline, E. (2004). Transforming Schools, Creating A Culture of Continuous Improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

CARE

Reflective Scholarship & Practice

Philosophy:  We believe reflective practice grounded in constructivist learning theory is an inquiry approach to teaching and learning that allows for a careful examination of personal beliefs, goals, and practices meant to deepen understanding and lead to actions that improve student learning (Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004; York-Barr, Sommers, Ghere & Montie, 2001). The process involves the educator as learner and the learner’s experiences in the construction of knowledge. The process involves an exploration and articulation of ideas, personal beliefs, knowledge, and experience (thus its emphasis on experiential learning); ongoing analysis of personal theory-in-use; and designing activities that are collaborative in nature. In action, reflective practice encourages the meaningful construction of connections between the new and the known. In Summary, reflective practice involves the presence of higher-level thinking processes such as inquiry, metacognition, analysis, integration, and synthesis. The focus on reflection usually involves an examination of personal beliefs, goals, and practices. Educators need feedback from educational leaders who can act as mentors, guides, facilitators, and coordinators for relevant meaning-making within the reflection process (Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004).

Professional Commitments and Dispositions: University of Idaho educators and leaders are reflective, build knowledge, and develop schemata complementary with good educational practice. A coherent starting point for reflective practice begins with valuing and acknowledging personal experiences and a unique understanding of the world; this does much to motivate reflective practitioners to immerse themselves as reflective educators in a way that begs the manufacture of personal meaning. Reflective practitioners seek out opportunities to engage in educational activities where they gain new knowledge and experience This generates new ideas, beliefs, attitudes and values that are used to make predictions and imagine the world in new ways. Nolan and Huber (1989) reviewed the literature of instructional supervision as it relates to reflection. They found that by: “1) engaging the teacher in the process of reflective behavior while 2) fostering critical inquiry into the process of teaching and learning, thereby 3) increasing the teachers’ understanding of teacher practice and 4) broadening and deepening the repertoire of images and metaphors, the teacher can call (be called upon?) on to deal with problems” (pg. 129). Schubert (1991), individually and together with Ayers (1992), has written at length about the value of reflective narrative for understanding practice and effecting changes in the curriculum.

The Reflective Scholar Educator/Practitioner

The reflective educator is a practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of her/his choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community). The teacher actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally. Korthagen and Wubbels (2001) identify the following characteristics and attributes of reflective teachers:

1. Reflective teachers are capable of consciously structuring situations and problems and consider it important to do so.

2. Reflective teachers use standard questions when structuring experiences.

3. Reflective teachers can easily answer the question of what they want to learn.

4. Reflective teachers can adequately describe and analyze their own functioning in the interpersonal relationships with others.

University of Idaho educators and leaders engage in a variety of activities, including self-evaluative strategies meant to provide a richer understanding of the experience and facilitate further learning and inquiry. The most widely used strategies are journals, critical incidents, portfolios, the left-hand column (as a means of uncovering assumptions), questioning, and personal inventories (Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004). In addition, reflective practitioners engage in the assessment of student learning through the use of tests, observations, rubrics, project-based activities, oral presentations, and student portfolios. University of Idaho educators also examine the organizational conditions that support learning through a careful assessment of the resources and the district/school/classroom culture, climate, and policies (Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004).

Relationship to Idaho State Teacher Standards

Reflective practice is embedded in and related to core standards for teacher preparation numbers 8 and 9 and complementary areas in domains one, three and four of Danielson’s model. Educators and leaders who meet these standards and domains are probably able to reflect on their practice in meaningful ways and use that insight to better themselves as professional educators and leaders.

Standard 8: Assessment of Student Learning

Standard 9: Professional Commitment and Responsibility

Danielson Framework – Candidate proficiencies and expectations of candidate performance

|Framework Component |Description of Teacher Performance |

|Domain 1 |Planning and Preparation |

|1b |Demonstrates knowledge of students |

|1f |Designs student assessments |

|Domain 3 |Instruction |

|3d |Uses assessment in instruction |

|3e |Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness |

|Domain 4 |Professional Responsibilities |

|4a |Reflects on teaching |

|4b |Maintains accurate records |

|4c |Communicates with families |

|4d |Participates in a professional community |

|4e |Grows and develops professionally |

References

Ayers, W., Hunt, J.A. & Quinn, T. (1992). Teaching for Social Justice. A Democracy and Education Reader, New Press: New York, NY.

Brookfield, S. D., (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

DeMulder, E. K., & Rigsby, L. C. (2003). Teacher’s voices on reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 4, 267-290.

Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (June, 2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83-87.

Korthagen, F. A. (2001). A reflection on reflection. In F. A. Korthagen (Ed.), Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education (pp. 51-68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Korthagen, F. A., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Characteristics of reflective teachers. In F. A. Korthagen (Ed.), Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic education (pp. 131-148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nolan, J. & Huber, T. (1989). Nurturing the reflective practitioner through instructional supervision: A review of the literature, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4(2) 126-145.

Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: Professional development to improve student learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Reagan, T. G., Case, C. W., & Brubacher, J. W. (2000). Becoming a reflective educator: How to build a culture of inquiry in the schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schubert, W., & Ayers, W. (1992). Teacher lore: Learning from our own experience. New York: Longman. York-Barr, J., Sommers, W. A., Ghere, G. S., & Montie, J. (2001). Reflective practice to improve schools: An action guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

CARE

Engagement in Community Building & Partnerships

Philosophy:  We believe it is the responsibility of local communities including parents, teachers, educational leaders, school board members, school administrators and community leaders to work together to ensure that all students receive a rigorous and relevant education that prepares them to become responsible and productive citizens in a civil society.

Education is a multi-faceted process calling on all social constituents to help shape responsible, productive citizens. Teachers and school and district administrators partner with parents and community leaders to provide relevant learning experiences.  A school-community bridge allows for continuous interaction between educators and constituents to provide a rigorous learning environment that will help learners thrive as productive members of a global society.

In Summary, for centuries, the education of children and youth has been the most important responsibility of society. Communities cannot rely only on schools and educators to provide quality instruction to students. It takes everyone within the community of learners working together on educational issues to provide a viable learning environment so all students can learn to be productive community members. As the African proverb reminds us, “It takes a village to raise a child.”

Professional Commitments and Dispositions: We endeavor to produce University of Idaho educators and leaders who recognize that when they enlist the participation of students’ families/caregivers in the education process, student learning is enhanced (Danielson, 1996). Therefore, community engagement is the inclusion of community members in school decisions, planning, activities, visioning, communication, and other school-related activities. Students whose communities are involved in their learning have a richer educational experience (Jehl & Kirst, 1992; Comer, 1988; Ascher, 1990).

Educators, administrators, parents, and community partners work together to design and carry out activities that will improve student achievement, meet community needs, and establish a sense of school community collaboration. In addition, Gamson (1994, 1997), in her research, links higher education with the rebuilding of civic life. She argues that, besides preparing instrumentally for a profession, students must also learn to serve as responsible citizens. One way to encourage civic responsibility is by integrating experiential learning into a university’s curricula. A school must offer learning as a key to the world—to an infinite number of ways of being and participating in the world. It must build on diversity, and create diversity. Battistani (1996) suggests that service-learning in higher education can be a powerful tool for educating citizens by building students’ concrete civic skills in the area of intellectual understanding, communication and problem solving, and civic attitudes of judgment and imagination. It is integral, however, that broad definitions of service and citizenship be assumed and used to develop measures of the impact on service-learners. Anderson (1998) also defines service-learning as both a philosophy of education and an instructional method.

Service-Learning:

In the United States, and the University of Idaho in particular, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of service-learning in both K-12 schools and teacher education (Glenn, 2002; Karayan & Gathercoal, 2005). This increase can be attributed to the recognition that well-designed and implemented service-learning activities can help address unmet community needs while also providing students with the opportunity to gain academic knowledge and skills.

The U.S. Department of Education has emphasized the importance of cooperative effects between schools and community organizations. Providing comprehensive academic, social, and health services for students, family members, and community members will result in improved educational outcomes for children. Schools do not operate in total isolation from the communities in which they are located. Community challenges such as poverty, violence, poor physical health, and family instability are also education issues. When schools and community partners collaborate to address these issues and align their resources to achieve common results, children are more likely to succeed academically, socially, and emotionally (Epstein, 2001; Henderson & Mapp, 2002).

Education must operate at the local level—it must be designed for and owned by local communities if it is to provide a meaningful learning experience for all students. The school must be part of a larger community responsible for ensuring that appropriate opportunities are provided at all stages of life. On the other hand, communities have their own combinations of individuals with special abilities, interests, and resources. Careful articulation of curriculum and in-school learning activity with resources outside of school will provide a rich experience for both students and adults (Eckert, Goldman, & Wenger, 2009).

Relationship to Idaho State Teacher Standards

Engaging in community building and partnerships is embedded in and related to core standard for teacher preparation number ten and complementary areas in domains one and four of Danielson’s model. Educators and leaders who meet these standards and domains are probably able to engage in community building and partnerships.

Standard10: Partnerships

Danielson Framework – Candidate proficiencies and expectations of candidate performance

|Framework Component |Description of Teacher Performance |

|Domain 1 |Planning and Preparation |

|1d |Demonstrates knowledge of resources |

|Domain 4 |Professional Responsibilities |

|4 c |Communicates with families |

|4d |Participates in a professional community |

|4f |Shows professionalism |

References

Ascher, C. (1990, February). Linking schools with human service agencies. ERIC Digest: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, No. 62.

Comer, J.P. (1988, November). Educating poor minority children. Scientific American, 259(5), 42-48.

Eckert, P., Goldman, S., & Wenger, E. (2009). The school as a community of engaged learners. Retrieved on April 16, 2010 from

Danielson, C. (1996). Professional practice: A framework for teaching. (2nd Ed.), Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Epstein, J.L (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Publishing.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on students’ achievement. Austin, TX: National Center of Family & Community Connections with Schools: Southwest Educational development Laboratory.

Karayan, S. & Gathercoal, P. (2005). Assessing service-learning in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly. 32(3) 79-92.

Jehl, J., & Kirst, M. (1992, Spring). Getting ready to provide school-linked services: What schools must do. The Future of Children, 2(1), 95-106.

Assessment Plan

Development and Description of the Assessment Plan

The assessment plan is designed to select and monitor the development of the best possible candidates to work in P-12 public schools. It provides current and planned data collection activities and a description of current and planned processes for using the data for program improvement. It was designed with six objectives in mind:

1. Alignment with the University student outcomes, the vision/mission of the College of Education, the Conceptual Framework (CARE), the Danielson Framework for Professional Practice, and the Idaho State Core Standards for Teacher Education

2. Based on input concerning elements of the system from faculty, professional community members, and advisory professionals

3. Where possible, integrated with existing, valid, and reliable instruments and procedures

4. Anchored with multiple, validated instruments and procedures explored in pilots before installation

5. Systematic and flexible to allow examination of unique program goals;

6. Focused for program development and improvement.

The plan involves important points in each candidate’s program and includes assessments, timelines, plans for creation of future instruments, integration of technology such as TaskStream System, and reporting of student academic and performance achievement regarding standards and dispositions. In addition, it identifies six main transition points or benchmarks at the program level:

1. Admissions

2. Completion of Course Work

3. Field Experience

4. Teaching Credential

5. Program Exit

6. Employment

The technological tools for maintenance of the assessment system consist of:

• The University of Idaho’s administrative computing system

• The University of Idaho Assessment and External Program Review system,

• The University of Idaho College of Education’s assessment system for standards and dispositions

• Professional folio system housing signature assignments, student artifacts and assessments.

These systems offer many currently existing and possible future ways to maintain data. Most recently, an Internship Placement System has been developed and is ready for use in the UI College of Education’s assessment system. In addition, the global rubrics in the Professional folio system permit examining candidate progress on specific assignments, tests, and dispositions through responses to signature assignments and professional dialog with professors. Each of these can be linked to the conceptual framework, program goals, and standards.

Aspects Addressing Program Operations

Program operations are addressed at each benchmark. Selected information is used to assess candidates and candidate outcomes. The plan addresses a number of concerns including:

• Quality of instruction

• Effectiveness of field supervision

• Candidates’ and graduates’ perceptions of the quality of their preparation

• Employers’ evaluations of graduates in terms of the overall program quality in comparison to graduates of other institutions

• Employers’ evaluations of graduates in terms of program goals and the conceptual framework

The plan includes a variety of data collected on an established schedule. The data are generally collected—either by semester or annually—and reviewed annually. Full implementation of this process of feedback and use of data is ongoing. Data from candidates’ course evaluations is used to monitor the quality of instruction. Program administrators and faculty review each set of evaluation forms and counsel instructors who are not maintaining high instructional quality. Assistance is provided where needed. The assessment design specifications provide common procedures and guidelines for the collection, analysis, summarization, and use of the assessment data. Multiple assessments are used throughout the program in order to ensure program quality, high standards, consistency, and clear procedures.

The system serves four functions:

1. To determine the quality of applicants and appropriate fit with the program

2. To determine the quality of candidates throughout their programs in terms of expected knowledge, performance and dispositions inherent in the conceptual framework

3. To determine whether candidates have met the standards set by the Idaho State Department of Education

4. To continually improve the quality of our programs and the unit’s performance.

The assessment system is also used for department and college monitoring and improvement. It includes embedded data sources and information obtained from graduates and employers.

Assessment System Data Collection Activities and Instruments

[pic]

ADMISSIONS

|Assessment Activity |Assessment Evidence |Schedule |Instrument(s) |

|GPA & required course verification |Transcripts, |By Semester |Transcripts, Admissions Checklist |

| |Admissions Checklist, | | |

| |Database | | |

|(Advanced Programs) Degree verification|Transcripts, Admissions Checklist,|By Semester |Transcripts, Admissions Checklist |

|(BA/BS or MA/MS) |Database | |  |

|Professional Experience |Initial interview |By Semester |Admissions Checklist, |

| | | |Initial Advisement interview, Personal |

| | | |Statement Form or Letter of Interest |

|Professional Recommendations |Letters and recommendations in |By Semester |Admissions Checklist, |

| |prospect’s admission file, | |Professional Letter of Recommendation form|

| |Admissions Checklist, Database | | |

|Background Check (credential programs) |Background Check verification |By Semester |Finger Print Analysis by the State |

|Personal Interview (if required) |Interview forms and rubric, |By Semester |COE initial and secondary interview form |

| |Admissions Checklist | | |

|Writing Sample |Writing Sample (Advanced Programs)|By Semester |Overall Rating Form rubric |

| |Letter of Interest (Initial | | |

| |Teacher Preparation) | | |

|Exceptions to Admission Criteria |Petition |By Semester  |Petition’s Committee Assessment Form |

|Final Admissions Decision |Admission Checklist Score and |By Semester  |COE Admissions to Teacher Education |

| |Faculty Approval Form | |Evaluation Summary |

| | | |Program Faculty Approval Form |

Completion of Course Work

|Assessment Activity |Assessment Evidence |Schedule |Instrument(s) |

|Successful completion of course work |Transcript |By Semester |Transcript |

|with a minimum 3.0 GPA (Advanced | | | |

|Programs) and 2.75 Overall GPA (Initial | | | |

|Teacher Preparation) | | | |

|Demonstration of content and pedagogical|Candidate Professional folio |By Semester |Program Advising form, |

|knowledge, skills and dispositions |assessment signature assignment | |Professional folio course signature |

|through assessment of program goals and |scores, | |assignment assessments, |

|CARE elements |Academic Exits | |Initial Teacher Preparation academic exit|

| | | |protocol |

|Subject Matter Competence (Initial |PRAXIS II, |By Semester |PRAXIS II, |

|Teacher Preparation) |Verification of Subject Matter | |Subject Matter Competency verification |

| |Competency | | |

|Demonstration of Readiness for Early |Passage of Elementary and Secondary |By Semester |Professional folio course and practicum |

|Student Teaching Experiences (Initial |Methods Courses and Practicum (Initial| |signature assignment assessments |

|Teacher Preparation) |Teacher Preparation) | | |

|Demonstration of Readiness for Field |Passage of Elementary and Secondary |By Semester |Professional folio course and practicum |

|Study or Internship |Methods Courses and Practicum (Initial| |signature assignment assessments |

| |Teacher Preparation) | | |

Field Experiences

|Assessment Activity |Assessment Evidence |Schedule |Instrument(s) |

|Location approved by the Director for |Signed Field Study Approval Form |By Semester and |Field Study Approval form |

|Field Placements | |Annually | |

|Completion of Early Field Experiences |Student Logs, |By Semester |Fieldwork Evaluation forms, |

| |University and Site Supervisor | |Professional folio course and practicum |

| |Observations and Ratings, | |signature assignment assessments |

| |Passage of Elementary and Secondary | | |

| |Methods Courses and Practicum (Initial | | |

| |Teacher Preparation) | | |

|Completion of Initial Internship I or |Student Logs, |By Semester |Fieldwork Evaluation forms, |

|Field Experience I |University and Site Supervisor | |Professional folio course and practicum |

| |Observations and Ratings, | |signature assignment assessments |

| |Passage of Elementary and Secondary | | |

| |Methods Courses and Practicum (Initial | | |

| |Teacher Preparation) | | |

|Completion of Internship II or Field |Student Logs, |By Semester |Fieldwork Evaluation forms, |

|Experiences II |University and Site Supervisor | |Professional folio course and practicum |

| |Observations and Ratings, | |signature assignment assessments |

| |Passage of Elementary and Secondary | | |

| |Methods Courses and Practicum (Initial | | |

| |Teacher Preparation) | | |

|Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA) |Passing score on the TPA (Initial |Semester |National Teaching Performance Assessment |

| |Teacher Preparation) | |for Elementary (Literacy or Math); |

| | | |Secondary (Math, Social Science, Science, |

| | | |English, Music, PE, Career Technical |

| | | |Education, or Agriculture); Special |

| | | |Education; or Early Childhood. |

PROGRAM EXIT/CREDENTIAL

|Assessment Activity |Assessment Evidence |Schedule |Instrument(s) |

|Final Evaluation of Field Experience|Final Experience form sign-off by Site |By Semester |University and Site Supervisor Rating |

|or Internship |Supervisor and University Supervisor | |forms |

| |(Initial Teacher Preparation ) | | |

|Completion of Thesis or Non-Thesis |Final Presentation, |By Semester |Final Presentation, Completion Form |

|Project |Completion Form | | |

|Professional folio Defense |Professional folio defense rubric score |By Semester |Professional folio Defense rubric |

|Completion of Final Academic Exit |Exit Interview Protocols |By Semester |Exit Interview Protocols and Response |

|Interview | | |Form |

|Completion of Exit Survey |Exit Survey form |By Semester |Exit Survey Responses |

|Graduation Check of all Program |Transcript, |By Semester |Transcript, |

|Requirements |Degree Audit | |Degree Audit |

|Final Verification for Eligibility |Credential Application checklist |By Semester |Credential Application checklist |

|-Recommendation for State | | | |

|Certification | | | |

employment

|Assessment Activity |Assessment Evidence |Schedule |Instrument(s) |

|Alumni Survey completion |Survey of Program Alumni |Bi-annually |Alumni Surveys |

|Employer Survey completion by |Survey of Employers |Bi-Annually |Employer Surveys |

|employer | | | |

Appendix I:

The Idaho Core Standards for Teacher Preparation Programs

Standard 1: Knowledge of Subject Matter - The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline taught and creates learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students.

Standard 2: Knowledge of Human Development and Learning - The teacher understands how students learn and develop, and provides opportunities that support their intellectual, social, and personal development.

Standard 3: Modifying Instruction for Individual Needs - The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities to meet students’ diverse needs and experiences.

Standard 4: Multiple Instructional Strategies - The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to develop student learning.

Standard 5: Classroom Motivation and Management Skills - The teacher understands individual and group motivation and behavior and creates a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.

Standard 6: Communication Skills – The teacher uses a variety of communication techniques to foster learning and communication skills.

Standard 7: Instructional Planning Skills - The teacher plans and prepares instruction based on knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, curriculum goals, and instructional strategies.

Standard 8: Assessment of Student Learning - The teacher understands, uses, and interprets formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and advance student performance and to determine teaching effectiveness.

Standard 9: Professional Commitment and Responsibility - The teacher is a reflective practitioner who demonstrates a commitment to professional standards and is continuously engaged in purposeful mastery of the art and science of teaching.

Standard 10: Partnerships - The teacher interacts in a professional, effective manner with colleagues, parents, and other members of the community to support students’ learning and well-being.

Appendix II:

Danielson Framework Domains

|Framework Component |Description of Teacher Performance |

|Domain 1 |Planning and Preparation |

|1a |Demonstrates knowledge of content and pedagogy |

|1b |Demonstrates knowledge of students |

|1c |Sets instructional outcomes |

|1d |Demonstrates knowledge of resources |

|1e |Designs coherent instruction |

|1f |Designs student assessments |

|Domain 2 |The Classroom Environment |

|2a |Creates an environment of respect and rapport |

|2b |Establishes a culture for learning |

|2c |Manages classroom procedures |

|2d |Manages student behavior |

|2e |Organizes physical space |

|Domain 3 |Instruction |

|3a |Communicates with students |

|3b |Uses questioning and discussion techniques |

|3c |Engages students in learning |

|3d |Uses assessment in instruction |

|3e |Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness |

|Domain 4 |Professional Responsibilities |

|4a |Reflects on teaching |

|4b |Maintains accurate records |

|4c |Communicates with families |

|4d |Participates in a professional community |

|4e |Grows and develops professionally |

|4f |Shows professionalism |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download