The New CSU Teacher License ProgramA Proposal fromCSU CREATE
INTRODUCTION
Teacher education programs are continually scrutinized for a variety of reasons including two misconceptions commonly held by the general public: 1) people are born to teach and 2) most of the learning about teaching occurs while teaching. These misconceptions led to the investigation of teacher education where several problems were found including disconnected curricula, lack of cohesiveness among those pursuing teacher licenses, lack of socialization of teachers in pre-service training, separation of theory and practice, and policy controlling decisions rather than what we know about teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Goodlad, 1991). Darling-Hammond (2005, 2006, & 200X), Goodlad (1991), and Wilson (2011) each make recommendations based on research for teacher education programs. Related to the structure of teacher education programs, it is recommended that teacher education programs:
Recruit good candidates Structure student teaching assignments that are longer than one semester, well
supervised, and well constructed “Focus teacher preparation on the foundations of skilled beginning practice” (Wilson,
2011, p. 67) Include intensive, connected clinical training Include content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge
such that no one type of knowledge is more important than the other Include high quality modeling
In addition to the structure, these articles also make recommendation for what teachers need to know and be able to do upon graduation from a teacher preparation program. Pre-service teachers should:
Learn specific and varying practices, district curricula and how to assess students Engage in relevant content Learn to be diagnosticians around teaching and learning (the graduating teacher should
not only know about a variety of strategies and assessment techniques, but know when and why to use the techniques)
Ravitch (200X) summarizes it well in her goal for teacher education programs: “An institution where future teachers become masters of their craft; where they learn the best ways to teach their subjects; where every course is infused with the ideals of liberal education; where there is no distinction made between what to teach and how to teach it; where the entire institution is organized to attract, prepare, and educate the best teachers in the land.” (p. 1315).
3
In response to recommendations noted above1, and based on a review of model programs from around the country2, the New CSU Teacher License Program has been designed to produce candidate-completers who will be classroom ready beginning teachers. They will have met all program and state standards; but what will make them stand out as exemplary beginning teachers are the following characteristics that best define the CSU teacher:
After extensive work in a variety of settings, they can step right in to a classroom in any school—urban, suburban, rural—and help their students achieve at high levels.
They have the demonstrated ability and a sound plan to successfully manage student behavior.
They are comfortable in diverse settings and can help all students celebrate and appreciate a variety of cultures, abilities, and life orientations.
They are not only skilled in technology, but they can use it in appropriate ways to facilitate learning and communicate with others.
They are not only able to reflect on their own teaching and student learning data to adjust and improve teaching and learning, but they are eager to do so.
They have the ability to plan and implement differentiated teaching and learning that accounts for the wide range of backgrounds and abilities in their classrooms.
They are problem solvers, adept at using the tools of inquiry to discover ways to adjust teaching and learning to help all students achieve.
They have the skills and desire to work collaboratively as team members with colleagues, administrators, family members, and members of the community.
They are professional in attitude, behavior, and appearance.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (to be updated during 2012-2013)
The Cleveland State University (CSU) conceptual framework for Teacher Education is "The Teacher as a Reflective Responsive Professional - A Partner in Learning." CSU teacher education graduates are known for distinctive abilities that reflect the four knowledge bases that compose this conceptual framework: inquiry, partnership, contextualism, and professionalism. As Figure 1 indicates, the four elements of the conceptual framework are related and emanate from our common beliefs about learners and the teaching-learning process. They guide the design of program elements, e.g., program outcomes, instructional strategies and activities in
1 Appendix A contains a table showing how the New CSU Teacher License Program responds to recommendations in the research.2 Appendix B contains a list of the model programs in the United States researched in the development of the New CSU Teacher License Program.
4
courses, and program evaluation. Inquiry, Contextualism, and Partnership are encircled by the concept of Professionalism. The conceptual framework assumes that Professionalism is not a plateau but rather a career-long process of reflection and growth, an ongoing process whereby teachers constantly enhance their understanding of how Inquiry, Contextualism, and Partnership relate to the teaching-learning process. At the very center of the conceptual framework is the learner. CSU teacher education graduates take seriously their role in implementing and adapting the conceptual framework to a variety of instructional environments, urban and suburban, where learner diversity- measured in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, language, socio-economic status, and exceptionality- is often in high profile. This contextual approach accounts for the unique challenges facing educators today.
Finally the application of inquiry, partnership, and contextualism builds upon an arts and sciences foundation and occurs within the framework of a career long continuum of professional development, from initial entry or induction into the profession through various stages of career growth, promotion and developed in the four knowledge bases depends on whether a teacher is entering the profession or has achieved the status of a master teacher. The interrelationships of these components will become more evident in the application of the conceptual framework to the program.
Figure I: The Teacher Education Conceptual Framework
INQUIRY
Definition: Inquiry is a recursive process of teaching and learning that incorporates aspects of constructivism, reflective practice, and a sociocultural perspective. Constructivism may take various forms, for example Piaget's (1974) individualist constructivism and Vygotsky's (1962) 'social constructivism, but the constructivist approach generally posits that the learner constructs knowledge through his or her own action in the world (Richardson, 1997; Walker, 2002). Reflective practice involves teachers who review, reconstruct, reenact, and critically analyze
5
their classroom teaching and learning (Bullough & Gitlin, 2001) often through dialogue with colleagues (Ancess, 2003). In addition, Dewey (1910) argued that reflective teachers become both "consumers and producers of knowledge about teaching-- both teachers and students of classroom life" (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, p. 9). The sociocultural view of teacher inquiry, as articulated by Weade and Green (1989), sees reflection as an individual act set within the larger cultural system of the school and the community beyond. Moreover, as students participate in the inquiry process, they also review, critically analyze, and self-evaluate their learning and become producers of knowledge within the social context of the classroom.
Rationale: Inquiry is an important knowledge base for the teacher education program for two reasons--teacher growth and student growth. First, teachers who understand and engage in inquiry are more likely to support student inquiry (Keene & Zimmerman, 1997; Bullough & Gitlin, 2001). Second, students who engage in inquiry actively construct knowledge by posing questions, seeking answers, evaluating results, and asking new questions both individually and collaboratively (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Davydov, 1995; Dewey, 1910; Walker, 2002). Teachers, who engage in inquiry and encourage their students to be inquirers also, recognize dissonance between theory and practice as an opportunity to grow. Their reflections, self--evaluations, observations, and re-searches provide a basis for genuine change rooted in questions and problems they have identified themselves (Bullough & Gitlin, 2001). The signature of the professional teacher is the continual practice of comparing personal knowledge with other educators' experiences (i.e., theory, ethical principles, as well as strategies and techniques), taking into account the needs and backgrounds of the students, then making decisions about instruction based upon a synthesis of these factors (Wells, 1994;Richardson, 1997; Walker, 2002).
Relation to Content: The inquiry approach informs the content of study, which primarily involves process strategies, at two levels: the teacher teaches students how to engage in inquiry and at the same time engages in it her/himself (Ancess, 2003; Lambert; 2003). Inquiry may incorporate elements of constructivist and sociocultural pedagogy including problem-posing curriculum, shared responsibility for learning, assessment integrated with instruction, collaborative discourse, and reflective practice (Morrison & Collins, 1996; Bullough & Gitlin, 2001). Using a thematic unit on weather as an example, teachers establish a developmentally appropriate environment for learning, select resources, and engage with students working individually and in small groups to ask questions about the weather, record observations, create graphs, analyze data, and make predictions. Concurrently, the teacher documents both individual learning and group interaction for the purposes of evaluating students' cognitive and social development, and then uses the results to inform planning for subsequent learning experiences. As teachers reflect upon and revise their own practice, they help students critically evaluate their work (Ancess, 2003; Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Bullough & Gitlin, 2001).
Relation to Process: The process elements of inquiry mirror the content elements. When an inquiry approach is taken, teachers and learners share responsibility for learning. The students' prior knowledge, their questions and interests, and their developmental levels help shape instruction. For example, thematic units or projects that integrate students' individual and cultural patterns of learning, their questions, and their interests with curricula. goals provide opportunities for students to learn how to conduct research, select appropriate materials, and
6
reflectively evaluate process and outcomes. In addition, an inquiry approach supports students' comprehension of challenging text material as they are guided to consider what they already know about the topic, ask questions, read the material, and determine for themselves what they have learned. Often inquiry is supported by group discussion built around higher order questioning and evaluative thinking. Reflective journals are another means of sustaining self-evaluation for both students and teachers.
PARTNERSHIP
Definition: The concept of partnership has a dual meaning as a key element in the CSU teachereducation conceptual framework. First, it encompasses the notion of individuals working together to learn—as students in cooperative and/ or cohort groups, or as students and their teacher(s) learning with and from each other. Second, partnership refers to the notion of individuals, organizations, or social structures collaborating to facilitate and enhance the achievement of learning outcomes. Such partnerships include teachers working with colleagues, parent and community involvement in schools, and business/school and university/ school collaborations.
Rationale: Partnership is important to the educational enterprise for a number of reasons. Foremost among these is that the achievement of learning outcomes is enhanced when students work in cooperation with each other and their teachers (;; Darling-Hammond & Hammerness, 2005; Johnson & Johnson, 1990) and when collaborative relationships are established to provide for the combination of resources and efforts (Gross, 1988; Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988; 1991; Zeichner, 2005). In addition, when students share learning with others, their social skills and interpersonal interactions improve, they learn the value of working together toward common goals, and they often enjoy the learning experience more (Black & Ammon, 1992; Howey & Zimpher, 1989; Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Lanier & Little, 1986; McGrath, 1984; Slavin, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978; Woolfolk, 2007). Finally, collaborative relationships can enhance teacher morale and professional development (Baker, 1994; Cochran & Fries, 2005; Hoy & Miskel, 2008) and can provide a variety of economic and social benefits to the businesses, universities, or communities involved (Elmore, 2006;Gross, 1988; Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988).
Relation to Content: The teacher who comes through the CSU teacher preparation program must be ready to work in partnership with others and to facilitate cooperative and team learning experiences among students. Components of a variety of courses in the CSU program therefore focus on such content as: (a) the importance and benefits of partnership and collaboration; (b) social aspects of learning; (c) techniques for structuring learning experiences that involve partnerships; (d) methods for encouraging students to work together effectively; and (e) procedures for establishing and maintaining collaborative efforts with parents, community members, colleagues, businesses, and universities.
Relation to Process: Students in the CSU teacher preparation program will learn about partnership by dealing with relevant content. In addition, as they move through the program, they will learn about partnership, learn to value it, and learn how to incorporate it in their own teaching by experiencing it and seeing it in action as they: (a) work together in small group
7
projects and discussions; (b) move through parts of their programs in cohort groups; (c) meet expectations to assist and provide feedback to each other; (d) see faculty working together in teaching teams, conducting research and writing grants together, and serving together on committees; (e) develop files of professional, community, and organizational resources; (f) and encounter partnerships in their field experiences.
CONTEXTUALISM
Definition: Teaching and learning do not occur in isolation. Context as a conceptual framework includes the entire range of influences surrounding and infusing the teaching-learning process. One important context is the individual learner and the background she or he brings to the classroom. It is an acknowledgement that children and adolescents come to the learning situation with prior knowledge and understandings and that the teacher’s capacity to build these prior experiences is an essential element in successful teaching. In this connection the idea of diversity is of central significance, particularly in urban settings where issues surrounding race, multiculturalism, socio-economic status, and exceptionality are in higher focus than in the larger society. Then, too, understanding the various contexts of education means understanding multiple ways in which broad historical, social, economic, political, and technological forces shape--for better or worse--educational priorities and policies at the national, state, and local level. (Dewey, 1938; Kliebard, 1995; Bruner, 1996; Plucker, 2002; Moore, 1998).
Rationale: The emphasis on context comes from the recognition that learning is contextually situated, that is to say, it is inextricably intertwined and informed by the developmental, socio-cultural, and institutional contexts in which it is being constructed and internalized. A comprehensive understanding of the multiple contexts of the teaching-learning process enables the teacher to incorporate into their teaching the cultures and background that students bring to the classroom, helping learners bridge connections between home, school, and the larger society. Similarly, teachers need to understand how the culture of the school and specific teaching practices may support or undermine students’ motivation to learn. Finally, in a time of immense social, economic, and technological change, it is imperative that teachers engage in an ongoing examination of the possible ways in which their students’ educational futures are either constrained or enhanced by existing curricular priorities and classroom strategies as well as continuing proposals for educational reform. (Aronson, 2002; Au & Kawnkami, 1994; Dweck, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2001; Neisser, 1998; Hunt, 1995; and Reich, 1992)
Relation to Content: As a model for teacher preparation, contextualism implies three major strands of content. First, there is that body of knowledge related to learners and the learning process. In this connection the teachers must acquire an understanding of how learners develop physically, cognitively, socially and emotionally. Toward this end, teachers need to know how new learning is constructed, what learners bring to the teaching-learning process, and how teachers might incorporate the learner’s background and interests into their instructional practices. Second, teachers will need to understand the nature and significance of diversity in all its multiple forms. Toward this end the role of gender, culture, race, socio-economic status, and exceptionality in shaping students’ school experience must be given careful attention. Also important are the implications of diversity for choosing curriculum objectives, instructional
8
methodologies, assessment strategies as well as ways of creating patters of positive social interaction in classrooms where all learners are respected for their unique contributions to a multicultural learning environment. Finally, teachers need to understand how historical, political, economic forces and structures influence all levels of the educational enterprise. In this respect, teachers must comprehend how such diverse factors as the global economy, racism, poverty, changing family structure, definitions of equity, the growing influence of popular culture, and the politics of school reform shape not only the decisions of educational policy makers but also the quality of life in every classroom. (Lareau, 2000; Tatum, 1992; Vygotsky, 1963; Hidalgo, Chavez-Chavez, and Ramage, 1996; Ducette, Sewell, Shapiro, 1996; Flynn, 2003; Cole, 1998; Gerstle, 2001; Lowry, 2002; Ogbu, 2003; Patterson, 2001; Rothstein, 2002; Ravitch and Viteritti, 2001; Suarez-Orozco 2001; and Zimmerman, 2002).
Relation to Process: Arguing this, knowledge must necessarily be an active not passive process. Because the purpose of CSU’s teacher education conceptual framework is to prepare teachers who are reflective inquirers, so the content of their coursework must provide a forum for constructive engagement and analysis. Whatever the format of instruction--lecture, Socratic dialogue, reading essays or texts, cooperative learning, or reflective essays--the spirit and essence of instruction should be an invitation to improve upon one’s professional knowledge and identity in an ever-changing society.
PROFESSIONALISM
Definition: Broadly defined as the distinguishing features of an occupation that generally requires advanced knowledge or training, the concept of professionalism presupposes the existence of a clearly defined knowledge base that has been codified and is, therefore, accessible to guide and support informed decision making and practice (Goodlad, 1990). Hence, as manifest in this conceptual framework, professionalism is viewed as an overarching construct which further assumes that teachers can and should assume greater collective responsibility for defining, transmitting, and enforcing standards of professional practice so that their clients or students are well served (Borko, H. (2004), Burbules & Densmore, 1991; Case, Lanier, & Miskel, 1986; Conley & Muncey, 1999; Haberman, 1986; Darling-Hammond. L. (2007), Lewis, 2002).
Rationale: The challenges and rewards of teaching have never been greater. The range and type of information that students need to know far exceeds that of previous decades such that academic expectations are increasing in virtually every state and community. Similarly, educators are being urged to teach higher-order thinking skills and creative problem solving strategies in much more inclusive and diverse classroom settings to ever increasing numbers of children whose social, economic, and/or emotional difficulties place them at risk academically (Darling-Hammond & Cobb, 1996). Given these and other societal changes that are having a profound impact on education, the nation-wide movement to restructure schools continues to gain momentum as have concomitant efforts to reform teacher education; to further professionalize teaching; and to reformulate the standards and procedures by which states and school districts license, hire, induct, support, assess, and provide for the continual learning of teachers (Wise & Darling-Hammond, 1987; Darling-Hammond & Berry, 1988). Nevertheless,
9
when issues of inequity are not directly addressed, the positive effects of teacher leadership and school reform would appear to be largely doomed as a means of raising the academic achievement of students in underresourced schools (Delpit, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 2001; Lipman, 1999; Wynne, 1999). Recognizing that the promise of a high quality education for all children is dependent not only on a total restructuring of schools, but also on the knowledge and commitment of practitioners to that restructuring, current efforts to strengthen professional accountability are indicative of a deepening commitment to client-oriented practice as the primary means of transforming and revitalizing education. Assuming that instructional decisions about different learners’ needs are too complex and individualistic to be prescribed from afar, “teachers must be prepared to address the substantial diversity in experiences that children bring with them to school: the wide range of languages, cultures, learning styles and challenges, talents, and intelligences that require in turn an equally rich and varied repertoire of teaching strategies” (Darling-Hammond & Cobb, 1996, p. 16). To this end, new entrants to the profession as well as veteran practitioners will need to develop deeper understandings of their disciplines, of interdisciplinary connections, and of inquiry-based learning and teaching. They will need skills for creating learning experiences that enable students to construct their own knowledge and will need to understand and use a variety of more authentic, performance-based means for assessing students’ knowledge and understanding, their approaches to learning, and their prior experiences (Hawley & Valli, 2001; Wilson & Berne, 2001). In sum, this mission for teaching defies any single, formulaic approach to instructional delivery, calling instead for thoughtful, adaptive teaching that is learner-centered. As a result, professional development should be linked to student learning and emphasize subject-specific pedagogical content knowledge. Likewise, it should apply findings of cognitive research by providing active intellectual engagement, sustained collaboration, and ongoing support (Fickel, 2002).
Relation to Content: Recognizing that teacher education is a career-long process beginning with undergraduate studies and culminating in retirement (Burke, 1987; Steffy, Wolfe, Pasch, & Enz, 1999), CSU’s program aims to provide an ongoing range of opportunities for continuous development that promote systemic reform initiatives in subject matter teaching, equity, assessment, and school organization. Without denying that there are times when technical skill training is appropriate, the program primarily serves to promote self-reliance in instructional decision-making by providing a rich learning environment that stimulates meaningful engagement with ideas, with materials, and with colleagues; takes explicit account of the experience, interests and developmental needs of teachers and their students; offers support for informed dissent as a vehicle for examining alternative approaches to instruction; places classroom practice in the larger contexts of school and societal reform; prepares teachers to engage in inquiry as a means of generating knowledge and assessing the knowledge claimed by others; and helps ensure a balance between the interests of individuals and the interests of institutions when planning for and delivering instruction (Little, 1993). As a result, the program promotes both professionalism and the further professionalization of teaching such that graduates may successfully assume positions of ever-increasing leadership both within and beyond the classroom.
10
Relation to Process: The view of teaching as intellectual work is at the heart of the restructured school, where practice is not prescribed and where considerable responsibility is placed on teachers for making judgments based on the best available information and a sound knowledge base. Given this imperative, CSU’s teacher education program seeks to provide prospective and practicing teachers, problem-based learning experiences that are situated in the context of practice and that further serve to promote partnerships, critical inquiry, reflection, and resilience. Extended clinical and site-based field experiences that are interwoven with coursework that incorporates microteaching, simulations, role playing, and well-designed case studies are a fundamental means of achieving this end (Carter & Anders, 1996; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Rentel, 1992); yet another is the conduct of action research. Specifically designed to promote critical inquiry, action research encourages teachers to make meaning of their own situational contexts by systematically engaging in analytical and reflective practice (Fueyo & Koorland, 1997; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). Such reflection anticipates a career-based model of teacher development grounded more persuasively in the ongoing pursuit of knowledge than its transmission and thereby contributes to the development and refinement of a personal philosophy of education. Still other means for promoting reflection--student journals and professional portfolios--as they are used in CSU’s program, encourage teachers to examine their beliefs, knowledge, and performance over time; to better understand their strengths and weaknesses; and to establish meaningful goals for continued development (Howey & Zimpher, 1996; Hurst, Wilson, & Cramer, 1998).
Looking to the future, the college hopes to further its involvement with projects that help to develop teachers’ abilities to examine teaching and learning from the perspective of diverse learners as has been recommended by Darling-Hammond (2000). In addition, plans are underway to maintain and expand its network of professional development or partner schools which hold particular promise for the improvement of practice and student achievement while simultaneously providing for the induction and cognitive apprenticeship of novice teachers as well as the continued advancement and renewal of practicing teachers and teacher educators (Borko, H. 2004, Clark, 1999; Cobb, 2000, 2001; Darling-Hammond. L. 2007, Darling-Hammond, 1994; David, 2000; Levine, 1996; Pritchard & Ancess, 1999, Tschannen-Moran, M. 2009).
PROGRAM STANDARDS
Consistent with the CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, the program standards listed below were derived from the Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession. The Ohio Standards serve as the base set of standards in order to insure that: (a) the CSU program is aligned with Ohio’s high expectations for its teachers; and (b) CSU candidates are fully aware of and can “talk the language” of the teaching standards adopted by their state. The modifications of the Ohio Standards include: (a) inclusion of the language and intent of those of the current 12 CSU program outcomes which were not explicit in the Ohio Standards; and (b) editing of some of the language of the Ohio Standards to be more consistent with philosophical and theoretical principles valued by CSU program faculty. The Standards for Cleveland State University Teacher Candidates are as follows:
11
Standard 1: The CSU teacher education candidate understands student learning and development and respects the diversity of the students he/she teaches.a. Teacher education candidates will possess knowledge and understanding of the social, political and
economic factors that influence education and shape the worlds in which we live.b. Teacher education candidates will demonstrate knowledge of how students learn and of the
developmental characteristics of age groups.c. Teacher education candidates will understand that students enter the learning setting with prior
experiences that give meaning to the construction of knowledge.d. Teacher education candidates will understand what students know and are able to do and use this
knowledge to meet the needs of all students.e. Teacher education candidates will expect that all students will achieve to their full potential.f. Teacher education candidates will model respect for students’ diverse cultures, language skills,
backgrounds and experiences.g. Teacher education candidates will recognize characteristics of the full range of student abilities in
order to assist in appropriate identification, instruction and intervention.
Standard 2: The CSU teacher education candidate understands content, disciplinary concepts and tools of inquiry related to the development of an educated person.a. Teacher education candidates will know the content they teach and use their knowledge of content-
area concepts, assumptions and skills to plan instruction and encourage discipline specific inquiry.b. Teacher education candidates will use content-specific instructional strategies to inform effective
planning and implementation of instruction. c. Teacher education candidates will understand school and district curriculum priorities and the Ohio
academic content standards.d. Teacher education candidates will understand the relationship of knowledge within the disciplines to
other content areas.e. Teacher education candidates will connect content to relevant life experiences towards the
development of an engaged citizen.
Standard 3: The CSU teacher education candidate uses varied assessments to inform instruction, promote academic and social development as well as to evaluate and ensure student learning.a. Teacher education candidates are knowledgeable about assessment strategies, their purposes and the
data they generate.b. Teacher education candidates will select, develop and use a variety of appropriate diagnostic,
formative and summative assessments.c. Teacher education candidates will analyze data to monitor student progress and learning, and to plan,
differentiate and modify instruction.d. Teacher education candidates will collaborate and communicate student progress with students,
parents and colleagues and other relevant stakeholders.e. Teacher education candidates will involve learners in self-assessment and goal setting.
Standard 4: The CSU teacher education candidate plans and implements developmentally appropriate instruction that engages students meaningfully and results in learning. a. Teacher education candidates will align their instructional goals and activities with school and district
priorities and Ohio’s academic content standards.b. Teacher education candidates will communicate clear learning goals and explicitly link learning
activities to those defined goals.c. Teacher education candidates will design and implement learning activities that build on what
children know and can do in school, at home, and in the community and that respond to their questions and interests.
12
d. Teacher education candidates will apply knowledge of how students think and learn to instructional design and delivery.
e. Teacher education candidates will differentiate instruction to support the learning needs of all students.
f. Teacher education candidates will create and select activities teacher- and child-initiated activities that are designed to help students develop as independent learners and complex problem-solvers.
g. Teacher education candidates will use resources effectively, including technology, to enhance student learning.
Standard 5: The CSU teacher education candidate creates learning environments that motivate all learners and promote high levels of learning and achievement.a. Teacher education candidates will treat all students fairly and establish an environment that is
respectful, supportive and caring.b. Teacher education candidates will create an environment that is physically and emotionally safe.c. Teacher education candidates will motivate students to work productively and assume responsibility
for their own learning.d. Teacher education candidates will create learning situations in which students work independently,
collaboratively and/or as a whole class.e. Teacher education candidates will maintain an environment that is conducive to learning for all
students.f. Teacher education candidates will promote positive social interaction, active engagement in learning,
and self-motivation.g. Teacher education candidates will design a technologically-rich environment that addresses a wide
range of learner needs.
Standard 6: The CSU teacher education candidate collaborates and communicates with students, parents other educators, administrator and the community to support student learning.a. Teacher education candidates will use knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal and media
communication techniques to foster inquiry, collaboration and engagement in learning environments.b. Teacher education candidates will work with parents and caregivers to create partnerships to support
student learning, emotional, physical and social development and mental health.c. Teacher education candidates will collaborate effectively with other professional colleagues,
including administrators, and school and district staff.d. Teacher education candidates will collaborate effectively with the local community and community
agencies, when and where appropriate, to promote a positive environment for student learning.
Standard 7: The CSU teacher education candidate is a reflective practitioner who assumes responsibility for professional growth, performance and involvement as an individual and as a member of a learning community.a. Teacher education candidates will understand, uphold and follow professional ethics, policies and
legal codes of professional conduct.b. Teacher education candidates will take responsibility for engaging in continuous, purposeful self-
reflection and professional development.c. Teacher education candidates will act as advocates for change and seek opportunities to positively
impact teaching quality, school improvements and student achievements, emotional, physical and social development and mental health.
d. Teacher education candidates will articulate a personal philosophy of teaching and learning that is grounded in theory, an awareness of existing models of teaching and learning and practice.
13
ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS
The new CSU teacher license program wants to recruit and admit candidates who evidence the potential to become high quality classroom ready teachers upon program completion. To achieve this goal and to raise the quality of program candidates, the following are proposed criteria for admission to a Cleveland State University teacher license program:
Criterion Rationale/CommentsHigh school grade point average of 3.20 or better on a 4-point scale*
Current average grade point average of education students is 3.06 (2011 CSU Book of Trends)
ACT score of 21 or better - OR – a combined SAT score of 1500 or better*
Current average ACT of education students is 19.9, equivalent to SAT score of 1404 (2011 CSU Book of Trends)
Cumulative undergraduate grade point average of 2.75 or better on a 4-point scale
Current requirement is 2.5
Grade of B- or better in a college level mathematics course
Current requirement is grade of C or better
Grade of B- or better in a freshman English course Current requirement is grade of C or betterGrade of 80 out of 100 or better on an on-site written essay
On campus in a proctored setting, applicants will respond to one of several prompts asking them to write a 100-200 word essay on past teaching experiences, why they want to be a teacher, what a good teacher is, etc.. The essays will be evaluated with a rubric focusing on such things as grammar, spelling, syntax, organization, quality of thinking, responding to the prompt.
Successful interview with a member of the relevant program faculty
Program faculty will use an agreed upon protocol to determine if applicant is suited for the relevant license program and is prone to displaying appropriate professional dispositions
*Exceptions to these criteria will be considered based on other criteria and additional information.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
To complete a CSU teacher license program and be recommended for an Ohio Teaching License, a candidate must:
Criterion Rationale/CommentsOverall professional course grade point average of 3.00 or better on a 4-point scale
Current requirement is 2.75 or better GPA
Overall undergraduate grade point average of 2.80 or better on a 4-point scale
Current requirement 2.50 or better G{A
Assessments of Proficient or better on all 7 program standards as evidenced by portfolio submissions
Proficient or better is currently required on 12 program standards
Successful completion of the Teacher Performance Assessment
New requirement which may or may not be mandated by State of Ohio
Successful completion of the Final Internship Same as current requirementSuccessful completion of all Seminar Culminating Projects
No current requirement
Passing score(s) on all required Praxis II examinations Same as current requirementNote: A checkpoint system will be developed to monitor candidate progress through the program.
14
ESSENTIAL CONTENT
The graphic below describes the broad areas of content deemed essential for classroom ready beginning teachers. It is assumed that the second stage of the development of the New CSU Teacher License Program will include more detailed delineation of content. Although “Field Experience” technically is not a content area, the graphic shows it, Diversity, and Technology along the borders of the graphic to make the point that these three areas are woven throughout the entire program.
15
ORGANIZATION OF ESSENTIAL CONTENT3
The chart which follows on page 16 shows how the essential content will be distributed across five semesters of the program, beginning with the Spring semester of Year 2. The first semester each item appears indicates when it will be introduced and focused upon. Where the color of the item is continued, with arrows, across additional semesters, this indicates that the content is expected to be dealt with in those semesters as well Since some broad content areas (e.g., Classroom Management) have a number of sub-areas, each time the broad content area appears, it is followed by a number (e.g., Classroom Management 1, Classroom Management 2, etc.).
The colors and the arrows of the chart hint at, but do not fully convey the developmental, cyclical, and dynamic nature of the curriculum. Once introduced and focused upon in a given semester, most of the content will be revisited in subsequent semesters where candidates’ understanding and application of the content will be enhanced and deepened as:
They solve new problems requiring them to use previous content; They reflect on aspects of their field performance related to previous content; They are assessed on aspects of their field and classroom performance related to previous
content; Their instructors and seminar leaders refer to previous content during classroom
presentations and discussions.
SEMESTER-BY-SEMESTER PLAN
On pages 17 and 18 is a four-year semester-by-semester plan of how each semester’s content will be “packaged”—in courses, in field/course integrated units, or in seminars. Also shown are placeholders for other courses candidates will be taking to meet general education and/or major requirements. Summers are not included in the plan.
The breakdown of credits in the semester-by-semester plan is as follows:
Program Component CreditsGen Ed Courses 38Major/Discipline Specific Content Courses 34-43
3 Appendix C contains a chart which shows the alignment of the essential content with the program standards.
16
Proposed Organization of Essential Content in the New CSU Teacher License ProgramColor Key Year 2: Spring Year 3: Fall Year 3: Spring Year 4: Fall Year 4: Spring
Year 2: Spring Year 3: Fall Year 3: Spring Year 4: Fall Year 4: SpringFocus:
Introduction / Overview / Setting the Context
Focus:Instruction and
Assessment
Focus:Students as Learners
Focus:Teacher Professionalism
Focus:Putting It All Together
Intro to Teaching (includes purposes of schooling and education, “how I see kids,” and types & importance of assessment)The CSU Program (includes knowledge bases, standards, themes, program organization, resources)Professionalism 1: Professional DispositionsEducational Technology 1: Needed skillsContext for LearningDiversity & Urban EducationContent 1: Discipline-specific content (CLASS and CSHP majors, Middle Childhood, PE Majors)
AssessmentValue AddedEducational PsychologyEducational Technology 2: ApplicationsPlanning for LearningImplementation of Teaching and LearningClassroom Management 1: Classroom EnvironmentCulturally Responsive TeachingProfessionalism 2: Professional RelationshipsContent 2: Discipline-specific content (Early Ch., Spec. Ed.)Content 3: Interdisciplinary ContentContent 4: Pedagogical ContentLiteracy 1 (or Reading in Content Areas)
Color Key Year 2: Spring Year 3: Fall Year 3: Spring Year 4: Fall Year 4: Spring
17
SEMESTER-BY-SEMESTER PLAN
Year 1
Fall 15 credits Spring 15-18 credits
GEN ED COURSESGen Ed Courses – 12-15 credits
MAJOR OR DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC CONTENT COURSESMajor/Discipline Specific content courses– 0-3 credits
GEN ED COURSESGen Ed Courses – 12-15 credits
MAJOR OR DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC CONTENT COURSESMajor/Discipline Specific content courses– 3-6 credits
Year 2
Fall 15-18 credits Spring 16 creditsTheme: Introduction/Overview/Setting the Context
GEN ED COURSESGen Ed Coures – 6-14 credits
MAJOR OR DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC CONTENT COURSESMajor/Discipline Specific content courses–3-12 credits
GEN ED COURSESGen Ed course – 0-3 credits
MAJOR OR DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC CONTENT COURSESMajor/Discipline Specific content courses– 6-9 credits
PROFESSIONAL COURSESEducational Technology (needed skills) – 1 credit with option to test out
FIELD/COURSE INTEGRATIONField One – 3 credits – 45 hours in field (school and non-school settings), 22.5 hours in classroom (primarily in field location) focusing on Context for Learning and Diversity (cultural competence)Introduction to Teaching – 2 credits (shares Field One) – TAG course
COHORT SEMINARSeminar One – 1 credit – focusing on Professional Dispositions, The CSU Program, Essential Questions (What are my past learning experiences, in what contexts have I learned, how will these impact my identity, roles, and responsibilities as a teacher?), with Culminating Project (Reflection Paper)
18
Year 3
Fall 18 creditsTheme: Instruction and Assessment
Spring 15-18 creditsTheme: Students as Learners
MAJOR OR DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC CONTENT COURSESMajor or Discipline Specific content courses– 3 credits
PROFESSIONAL COURSESEducational Technology (applications) – 3 credits – TAG courseEducational Psychology – 3 credits – TAG courseLiteracy 1 or Reading in the Content Areas – 3 credits
FIELD/COURSE INTEGRATIONField Two – 5 credits – 75 hours in field (school and non-school settings), 37.5 hours in classroom (primarily in field location) focusing on Assessment, Value Added concepts, Planning for Learning, Implementation of Teaching and Learning, Pedagogical Content, Classroom Management (Classroom Environment, Culturally Responsive Teaching), and previous content
COHORT SEMINARSeminar Two – 1 credit – focusing on Professional Relationships, Interdisciplinary Content, Essential Questions (How do I use theory, planning, instruction, and assessment together to create student success?), with Culminating Project (Concept Map)
MAJOR OR DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC CONTENT COURSESMajor or Discipline Specific content courses– 3-9 credits
PROFESSIONAL COURSESIndividual Differences – 3 credits – TAG courseLiteracy 2 – 0-3 credits (EC, SE, MC candidates only)
FIELD/COURSE INTEGRATIONField Three – 5 credits – 75 hours in field (school and non-school settings), 37.5 hours in classroom (primarily in field location) focusing on Classroom Management (Classroom Relationships), Exceptionalities (Learners with Disabilities, Gifted Learners, English Language Learners), and previous content
COHORT SEMINARSeminar Three – 1 credit – focusing on Transdisciplinary Content, Essential Questions (Who are my students and how do I establish relationships while using a variety of strategies in multiple content areas to build on their strengths and address their needs?), with Culminating Project (Collection of lesson plans and a reflective paper addressing specific portions of the Essential Questions)
Year 4
Fall 18 creditsTheme: Professionalism
Spring 15 creditsTheme: Putting it All Together
MAJOR OR DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC CONTENT COURSESMajor or Discipline Specific content courses– 3-9 credits
PROFESSIONAL COURSESLiteracy 3 – 0-3 credits (EC, SE, MC candidates only)Literacy 4 – 0-3 credits (EC, SE, MC candidates only)
FIELD/COURSE INTEGRATIONField Four/Seminar Four – 9 credits – 180 hours in field (school and non-school settings), 30 hours in classroom (primarily in field location) focusing on Classroom Management (Conflict Resolution) and previous content, 15 hours in Seminar
COHORT SEMINARSeminar Four – (part of Field Four/Seminar Four above) focusing on Professionalism (Community/Family Engagement), Essential Questions (Who am I as professional, how do I solve problems, create solutions, utilize community stakeholders, and partner with families), with Culminating Project (Project involving
FIELD/COURSE INTEGRATIONField Five/Seminar Five – 15 credits –405 hours in field focusing on all previous content plus 22.5 hours in seminar focusing on Professionalism (Teacher Leadership skills), Essential Questions (How am I integrating and implementing all I have learned and what is my plan for continuing as a professional and life-long learner?), with Culminating Project (Teacher Performance Assessment and Professional Plan)
COHORT SEMINARSeminar Four – (part of Field Five/Seminar Five above)
19
community mapping with a lesson plan)
INTEGRATION OF COURSE AND FIELD WORK
The heart of the New CSU Teacher License Program is the integration of classroom work, field work, and cohort seminar work that occurs each semester in the semester-by-semester plan described above. This integration involves the following kinds of activities:
Candidates in the classroom component of a field/course integration or in a cohort seminar will be helped to see how the classroom or seminar content can be applied in the field.
Candidates in the field will be solving problems and accomplishing tasks that call for them to apply classroom or seminar content.
Time will be allotted in the classroom or seminar for candidates to share their problem solutions and task outcomes.
The Classroom Instructor or Seminar Leader and the candidates’ mentor teachers will communicate and collaborate to insure integration of classroom or seminar and field work.
P-12 Experts in Residence (mentor teachers identified as having leadership qualities and content expertise) will collaborate with Classroom Instructors and Seminar Leaders to facilitate classroom learning experiences for candidates.
In addition, once content has been introduced in the course(s), field/course integrated experiences, and seminars of one semester, candidates will be asked to apply it in subsequent semesters’ field experiences and will be asked to reflect on their use of the relevant knowledge and skills in those field experiences.
FACULTY ROLES
Expectations for faculty members and their roles in the proposed New CSU Teacher License Program will differ from what they currently are. By virtue of the fact that the key elements of the new program are integration of classroom and field experiences and collaboration with P-12 partners, faculty members will be playing much greater roles in the field. Although not all faculty members will be expected or required to fulfill all of the roles described below, most will be involved in one or more of these roles. The hope is that a program of education and matching roles to faculty member qualifications and preferences will provide the smoothest transition to the new program. Faculty roles in the new program are proposed as follows:
Course Instructor – Stand Alone CourseAlthough there will be fewer stand alone courses in the new program, the instructor role in this case will be very much what it is now in the typical course not explicitly connected to a field or clinical experience. There will, however, be a strong emphasis on helping candidates make connections to classroom practice. In addition, it is possible that some stand alone courses may involve some kind of collaborative teaching arrangement with other CSU faculty or qualified P-12 teachers.
20
Course Instructor – Field-Integrated CourseA field-integrated course involves classroom teaching/learning and one or more integrated field experiences. Various combinations of course and field may exist, including:
One or more weeks of classroom teaching/learning, followed by several weeks in the field
Some arrangement of classroom-field-classroom experiences Part of the day in the classroom, part of the day in the field
In all cases, it will be the role of the course instructor to: (a) in many cases co-teach with one or more other CSU faculty members and/or qualified P-12 teachers; (b) help the candidates during classroom teaching/learning make applications to upcoming field experiences; (c) develop and then, during classroom teaching/learning, assign candidates problems or tasks they will try to solve and carry out during their field experiences; (d) visit candidates during their field experiences to monitor progress on the assigned problems and tasks and to help candidates with problems; (e) communicate with their candidates’ mentor teachers on candidate progress in completing problems and tasks.
Seminar LeaderEach candidate field experience will focus on one or more essential areas of content. In some cases, candidate progress during the field experience will be directed by the course instructor of a field-integrated course. In other cases, candidate progress will be directed and monitored by the Seminar Leader who will work with a cohort of candidates in the field and meet with them in seminar on a regular basis. Seminar activity will include dealing with essential questions related to the semester’s theme, assigning problems and tasks, reviewing completed problems and tasks, and helping candidates to access information needed to complete problems and tasks. The implication is that the Seminar Leader will spend considerable time in the field, visiting candidates, meeting in seminars located in the schools, and meeting with candidate mentor teachers to help them understand candidate assignments. The Seminar Leader during the final internship will be responsible for working with cohort candidates to complete the Teacher Performance Assessment process. It is recommended that each Seminar Leader stay with an assigned cohort of candidates for at least the last two years of their program. Part of the role of Seminar Leader is to help the cohort members develop and maintain a sense of community and keep the cohort “on track” in meeting program requirements.
Field LiaisonOne or more faculty members will be identified to work closely with personnel in each partnership district to place candidate interns, arrange locations for seminar meetings, and deal with issues which might arise.
Program AdvisorProgram faculty will be involved with interviewing applicants to their programs, providing program guidance on a regular basis, monitoring progress in meeting portfolio requirements, and completing portfolio checkpoint assessments.
School Teaching Team Member
21
At points during candidate field experiences, faculty members, acting as field-integrated course instructors or field instructors, may play the role of School Teaching Team Member. The School Teaching Team Member may spend considerable part of a day or week in the schools: (a) working as part of a co-teaching team with a mentor teacher and one or more interns; or (b) teaching part or all of a K-12 class—to provide time for the mentor teacher and intern(s) to meet. The School Teaching Team Member would in many ways play the role of Adjunct K-12 Teacher.
P-12 PARTNERS
The ultimate success of the field-centered New CSU Teacher License Program will depend on the full support of and close collaboration with our P-12 partners. Relationships with our local P-12 partners must be nurtured and maintained so they will collaborate with us to provide the following:
A district coordinator of CSU field experiences Placements for candidates in their five different field experiences High quality mentor teachers Opportunities for district P-12 teachers to engage in collaborative teaching experiences with CSU
faculty members Space(s) and time during the school day for mentor teachers, candidates, and CSU faculty
members to gather for course or seminar work, communication, and collaboration Opportunities for CSU faculty members, district teachers, and candidates to work together in co-
teaching teams to teach district students Opportunities at times for candidates at more than one level to be placed in the same classroom
FIELD PLACEMENT GUIDELINES
The following guidelines for field placement are proposed for the New CSU Teacher License Program:1. Candidates will not be placed unless they meet the full set of eligibility requirements for each
field experience.2. To the extent possible, candidates in program-area cohorts will be placed in proximal schools
and districts so as to enhance opportunities for seminar, course, and other collaborative meetings.
3. Candidates will be placed with high quality and content appropriate mentor teachers.4. Efforts will be made to match candidates with mentor teachers in terms of philosophy,
temperament, and personality.5. When possible, candidates will have the same placement for Year 4 Fall and Year 4 Spring.
MENTOR TEACHER SELECTION GUIDELINES*
The CSU Office of Field Services and the district coordinator of each partner district will work collaboratively to insure that assigned mentor teachers meet the following criteria:1. The Mentor Teacher must have an academic content area appropriate to the candidate’s
program.2. The Mentor Teacher must have completed at least 3 years of successful post-residency
teaching experience.
22
3. The Mentor Teacher must have a master’s degree.4. The Mentor Teacher must have successfully completed a CSU Mentor Teacher Training
course or workshop (to be developed).5. The Mentor Teacher must have supporting documentation from their current building
administrator.*These guidelines may have to be adjusted for placement settings other than P-12 public schools (e.g., certain Early Childhood pre-school settings).
INSTRUCTIONAL MODES
CSU faculty members use a variety of instructional modes to help candidates meet program and course objectives, and they will continue to do so in the New CSU Teacher License Program. The new program, however, will emphasize a problem based learning approach, especially in field experiences and in courses/seminars integrated with field experiences. The major steps of the basic problem based learning approach are as follows:
Candidates are presented with a problem in a given situation or context. This is often done via a case study which presents relevant history and facts.
Candidates, in groups or as individuals, are then guided through a process of determining what information, data, and resources they would need to effectively solve the problem.
Candidates, in groups or as individuals, consult identified resources and gather necessary information and data.
Candidates, in groups or as individuals, design a solution to the problem. Candidates, in groups or as individuals, implement the designed problem solution(s). Candidates individually reflect on the outcomes of their solutions and share what they
learned with other candidates.
A brief example of the problem based learning approach is as follows:
The Field-Integrated Course Instructor presented the problem of differentiating instruction to account for learner differences. With the help of her Mentor Teacher a candidate identified three students in her second period Social Studies class: (1) a low performing boy; (2) a medium performing girl; and (3) a high performing boy or girl. At least two different ethnic groups had to be represented among the three students. The candidate talked to each of the students for a few minutes to get to know them better. Then after the school day, and referring to the readings and class notes from her Individual Differences and Educational Psychology courses, the candidate drafted a plan for helping all three of the selected students learn one of the social studies concepts in the current unit. She then reviewed the draft plan with her Mentor Teacher and made a few changes. For two days she worked with the three students to implement her plan. The following day she and her Mentor Teacher assessed how well each of the three students learned the concept. In the next meeting of the Field-Integrated Course, the candidate shared her findings and a brief summary of how she solved the problem with the other candidates in her course. Then over a weekend she reflected on the problem solving experience and wrote a three to five page summary of what she did to solve the problem, how her solution worked, and what she learned from the experience.
23
A variation of the problem based learning approach will also be used in candidate Cohort Seminars. This variation deals with Essential Questions, which according to Wiggins and McTighe (2006) have the following characteristics:
Essential questions are “important questions that recur throughout all our lives.” They are “broad in scope and timeless by nature.”
Essential questions refer to “core ideas and inquiries within a discipline.” They “point to the core of big ideas in a subject and to the frontiers of technical knowledge. They are historically important and alive in the field.”
Essential questions help “students effectively inquire and make sense of important but complicated ideas, knowledge, and know-how — a bridge to findings that experts may believe are settled but learners do not yet grasp or see as valuable.”
Essential questions “will most engage a specific and diverse set of learners.” They “hook and hold the attention of your students.” (108-109)
The assumption is that the essential questions posed and dealt with in each semester’s cohort seminars will deal with the major focus or theme of the semester. An example of an essential question in the Third Year Spring Semester, where the theme is “Students as Learners,” might be:
It is also recommended that a culminating project be assigned each semester to provide the opportunity for candidates to synthesize their ideas relating to the semester’s essential question(s). For example, the culminating project relating to the above essential question might be a collection of lesson plans and a reflective paper addressing specific portions of the question.
Through a problem based learning/essential questions approach, candidates will not only acquire many of the teaching skills and knowledge necessary to become classroom ready beginning teachers, but will also gain the problem solving tools of inquiry needed to succeed in today’s ever changing and increasingly complex classrooms.
SUPPORT SYSTEMS
The New CSU Teacher License Program will have systems in place to support candidates, CSU faculty, mentor teachers, and other P-12 partners. The systems supporting each of these populations emphasize collaboration and are described below.
Candidates To optimize candidates’ success throughout their programs each candidate will be part of a small cohort of candidates formed at the start of year 3 and staying together for the rest of years 3 and 4. Each cohort will consist of 5 to 12 candidates seeking the same teaching license. Each cohort will be assigned a Program Advisor and a Seminar Leader, both of whom will stay with the
Who are my students and how do I establish relationships while using a variety of strategies in multiple content areas to build on their strengths and address their needs?
24
cohort for years 3 and 4. As described earlier in Faculty Roles, among other responsibilities the Program Advisor and Seminar Leader will help the cohort members develop and maintain a sense of community and keep the cohort “on track” in meeting program requirements.
A second area of support for candidates is financial. Because the cohort model suggests that a greater proportion of candidates will be full time students, and because the focus on field experiences may make it difficult for candidates to adjust work schedules, it is essential that funding be obtained to provide various forms of financial aid for candidates.
CSU Faculty Most faculty members involved in the New CSU Teacher License Program will have to adjust to new roles. To facilitate this adjustment and to help faculty achieve ongoing success in their various roles, a sub-committee of Faculty Affairs will be charged by the Dean with:
Planning and implementing an ongoing faculty professional development program designed to help faculty members transition to and feel comfortable in their new roles
Proposing a set of guidelines for assigning fair and equitable faculty loads to the various roles and responsibilities of the new program
Proposing adjusted promotion and tenure guidelines which take into account the new collaborative, field-based roles of faculty
Mentor Teachers A great amount of communication and collaboration between CSU faculty members and mentor teachers is built into the New CSU Teacher License Program. Course Instructors, Seminar Leaders, and School Teaching Team Members will work closely with the mentor teachers of their cohorts’ candidates to help mentor teachers become aware of and to meet their responsibilities. In addition, the Office of Field Services periodically will conduct professional development workshops for mentor teachers and will be an additional sources of support for mentor teachers.
Other P-12 Partners CSU faculty members acting as Field Liaisons will work closely with personnel in each partnership district to place candidate interns, arrange locations for seminar meetings, and deal with issues which might arise. In addition, the Office of Field Services will coordinate field placements and meet regularly with school partners.
25
REFERENCES
Current Research on Teacher Education
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, CA. (pgs. 1-74).
Wilson, S. (2011). How can we improve teacher quality? Phi Delta Kappan, 93, 64-67.Goodlad, J. (1991). Why we need a complete redesign of teacher education. Educational
leadership, 4-10.Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Teaching as a profession: Lessons in teacher preparation and
professional development, Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 237-240.Ravitch, D. (200X). A reflection on the professional preparation of teachers (p. 1313-1315)Darling-Hammond, L. (200X). Knowledge for teaching: What do we know? (p. 1316-1323)
Conceptual Framework - Inquiry
Ancess, J. (2003). Beating the odds: High schools as communities of commitment. New York: Teachers College Press.
Brooks, J.G. & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Bullough, R.V., Jr. & Gitlin, A.D. (2001). Becoming a student of teaching: Linking knowledge production and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Falmer.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge. New York Teachers College.
Davydov, V.V. (1995). The influence of L.S. Vygotsky on education theory, research, and practice. Educational Research, 24, 12-21.
Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.Keene, E.O. & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a
reader’s workshop. New York: Heinemann.Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Morrison, D. & Collins, A. (1996). Epistemic fluency and constructivist learning environments.
In B.G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 107 – 120). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: theory and practice. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building new understandings (pp. 3 – 14). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Piaget, J. (1974). To understand is to Invent. New York: Viking.Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Walker, D. (2002). Constructivist leadership: standards, equity, and learning—weaving whole
cloth from multiple strands. In L. Lambert, D. Walker, D. Zimmerman, J. Cooper, M. Gardner, M.D. Lambert & M. Szabo (Eds.), The constructivist leader (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Weade, R. & Green, J.L. (1989, March). Action research and the search for meaning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational research Association, San Francisco, CA.
26
Wells, G. (1994). Changing Schools from Within: Creating Communities of Inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Conceptual Framework – PartnershipBaker, W.E. (1994). Networking smart: How to build relationships for personal and
organizational success. New York: McGraw-Hill.Black, A., & Ammon, P. (1992). A developmental-constructvist approach to teacher education.
Hales, V., & Smith, G. (2002). Rethinking field experience: Partnership teaching versus single-placement teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), pp. 68-80.
Carvan, M.T., Nolen, A., & Yinger, R. (2002). Power through partnership: The Urban Network for the Improvement of Teacher Education (UNITE). Teacher Education and Practice, 15(1-2), pp. 88-101.
Cibulka, J.G. (2003). Introduction: The evaluation of Baltimore's city-state partnership to reform BCPSS: Framing the context, national trends, and key findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(1), pp. 1-14.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Fries. K. (2005). Researching teacher education in changing times: politics and paradigms. In Studying teacher education: A report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner, Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Hammerness, K. with P. Grossman, F. Rust, L. Shulman (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Edens, K., Shirley, J, & Toner, T. (2001). Sustaining a professional development school partnership: Hearing the voices, heeding the voices. Action in Teacher Education, 23(3), pp. 27-32.
Elmore, R.F. (2006). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
Epanchin, B.C. & Colucci, K. (2002). The professional development school without walls: A partnership between a university and two school districts. Remedial and Special Education, 23(6), pp. 349-358.
Epstein, J.L. (Ed.), (1991). Parental involvement: A special section.” Phi Delta Kappan, 72(5), 344-388.
Galassi, J.P., White, K.P., Vesilind, E.M., & Bryan, M.E. (2001). Perceptions of research from a second-year, multisite professional development schools partnership. Journal of Educational Research, 95(2), pp. 75-83.
Gross, T.L. (1988). Partners in education: How colleges can work with schools to improve teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howey, K.R., & Zimpher, N.L. (1989). Profiles of Preservice Teacher Education: Inquiry into the Nature of Programs. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hoy, W.K. & Miskel, C.G. (2008). Educational administration : Theory, research, and practice (8th Ed.). New York: McGraw-hill.
James, C.E., & Haig-Brown, C. (2001). "Returning the dues": Community and the personal in a university-school partnership. Urban Education, 36(2), pp. 226-235.
27
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1990). Social skills for successful group work. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 29-33.
Lanier, J.E. , & Little, J.W. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd. ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Little, J.W. (1982). Norms of Collegiality and Experimentation: Workplace Conditions of School Success.” American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325-340.
Mitchell, S. (ed.) (2002). Effective educational partnerships: Experts, advocates, and scouts. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Murrell, P.C. (2001). The community teacher: A new framework for effective urban teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Negroni, P. (2002). A network of relationships. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(4), pp. 284-285.Sirotnik, K.A., & Goodlad, J.I. (Eds.), (1988). School-university partnerships in action:
Concepts, cases, and concerns. New York: Teachers College Press.Slavin, R.E. (1990). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational
Developing a cadre of leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Vygotsky, L (1978). Mind in society: The develop of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole,
V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Woolfolk, A. (2007). Educational psychology (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.Zeichner, K.M. (2005). A research agenda for teacher education. In Studying teacher education:
A report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner, Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conceptual Framework - Contextualism
Aronson, J. (2002)(Ed.). Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education. New York; Academic Press.
Au, K. H., & Kawakami, A. J. (1994). Cultural congruence in instruction. In E.R. Hollins, J. E. King, & W.C. Hayman (Eds.) Teaching Diverse populations: Formulating a Knowledge Base. Albany, NY: SUNY.
Banks, J.A. & Banks, C.A. (1997). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (3rd Ed.), Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Cole, M. (1998). Can cultural psychology help us think about diversity? Mind, Culture, &
Activity, 5, 291-305. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.Ducette, J.P., Sewell, T.E., and Shapiro, J.P. (1996). “Diversity in Education: Problems and
Possibilities.” In F.B. Murray (ed.), The Teacher Educator’s Handbook: Building a Knowledge Base for the Preparation of Teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dweck, C.S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
28
Flynn, J.R. (2003). Movies about intelligence: The limitations of g. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12. 95-100.
Gerstle, G. (2001). American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hidalgo, F., Chavez-Chavez, R., and Ramage, J. (1996). “Multicultural Education: Landscaped for Reform in the Twenty-First Century.” In J. Sikula (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York: MacMillan.
Hunt, Earl B. (1995). Will we be smart enough?: A cognitive analysis of the coming workforce. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing Over to Canaan: The Journey of New Teachers in Diverse Classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lareau, A. (2000). Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education. New York: Roman and Littlefield.
Loury, G. (2002). The Anatomy of Racial Inequality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Moore, B.J. (1998). Situated cognition versus traditional cognitive theories of learning.
Education, 119, 161-171.Neisser, U. (Ed.) (1998). The rising curve: Long term gains in IQ and related measures.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ogbu, J. (2003). Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic
Disengagement. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Patterson, J. (2001). Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and It’s Troubled
Legacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Plucker, J.A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development
in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165-183.
Reich, Robert B. (1992). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st century capitalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Rothstein, R. (2002). Out of Balance: Our Understanding of How Schools Affect Society and How Society Affects Schools. Chicago: Spencer Foundation (30th Anniversary Essay).
Ravitch, D. and Viteritti, J., eds. (2001). Making Good Citizens: Education and Civil Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Suarez-Orozco, C. and Suarez-Orozco, M. (2001). Children of Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tatum, B.D. (1992). Talking about Race, Learning about Racism: The Application of racial Identity Development Theory in the Classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 1-24.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1963). “Learning and Mental Development at School Age.” In B. Simon and J. Simon (ed.), Educational Psychology in the U.S.S.R. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Zimmerman, J. (2002). Whose America: Culture Wars in the Public Schools. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Conceptual Framework - ProfessionalismBorko, H. (2004). Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.Burbles, N., & Densmore, K. (1991). The limits of making teaching a profession. Educational
Policy, 5(1), 44-63.
29
Burke, P. J. (1987). Teacher development: Induction, renewal and redirection. New York: Falmer Press.
Carr, D., & Skinner, D. (2009). The Cultural Roots of Professional Wisdom: Towards a broader view of teacher expertise. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41(2), 141-154.
Carter, K., & Anders, D. (1996). Program pedagogy. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 557-592). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Case, C.W., Lanier, J. E., & Miskel, C. G. (1986). The Holmes Group report: Impetus for gaining professional status for teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 36-43.
Clark, R.W. (1999). Effective professional development schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cobb, J. B. (2000). Critical themes in teacher education: The impact of a professional development school on preservice teacher preparation, inservice teachers’ professionalism, and children’s achievement: Perceptions of inservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 22(3), 64-76.
Cobb, J. B. (2001). Graduates of professional development school programs: Perceptions of the teacher as change agent. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 89-107.
Colbert, J.A., Brown, R.S., Choi, S., Thomas, S. (2008). An Investigation of the Impacts of Teacher- Driven Professional Development on Pedagogy and Student Learning. Teacher Education Quarterly 35(2), 135-154
Conley, S., & Muncey, D. (1999). Teachers talk about teaming and leadership in their work. Theory Into Practice, 38(1), 46.
Dall’, Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling Professional Development: A Critical Review of Stage Models. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 383-412.
Darling-Hammond. L. (2007) A Good Teacher in Every Classroom: Preparing the Highly Qualified Teachers Our Children Deserve. The National Academy of Education Committee on Teacher Education. Education Horizon 85(2), 111-132.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Securing the Right to Learn: Policy and Practice for Powerful Teaching and Learning. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 13-24.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166-173.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry B. (1988). The evolution of teacher policy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cobb, V. L. (1996). The changing context of teacher education. In F. B. Murray (Ed.). The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 14-62). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
David, T. (2000). Programs in practice: Teacher mentoring—benefits all around. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 36(3), 134-136.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people's children. New York: The New Press. Erickson, G., Minnes Brandes, G., Mitchell, I., & Mitchell, J. (2005). Collaborative teacher
learning: Findings from two professional development projects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(7), 787-798
30
Fickel, L. H. (2002). Quality professional development: Suggestions about process and content. Educational Forum, 67(1), 47-54.
Fueyo, V., & Koorland, M. A. (1997). Teacher as researcher: A synonym for professionalism. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 336-344.
Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 179-193.
Goodlad, J. (1990) . Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Goodson, I. (2008). Life history and collective memory as methodological strategies: Studying
teacher Professionalism.” Teacher Education Quarterly, 35 (2), 5-28.Haberman, M. (1986). Licensing teachers: Lessons from other professions. Phi Delta Kappa,
67, 719-722.Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (2001). The essentials of effective professional development: A
new consensus. In D. Boesel (Ed.) Continuing professional development: Improving teacher quality: Imperative for educational reform (pp. 1-17). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved July 16, 2003, from http://www.ericsp.org/pages/digests/ConProfDev.pdf
Howey, K. R., & Zimpher, N. (1996). Patterns in prospective teachers: Guides for designing preservice programs. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 465-505). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Hurst, B., Wilson C., & Cramer, G. (1998). Professional teaching portfolios. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(8), 578-82.
Johnson, D., & MacLean, R. (2008). Teaching: Professionalization, Development and Leadership. Washinton D.C.: Springer.
Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolios for learning, assessment and professional development in higher education. Assessment, 31 (3), 267-286.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to canon: The journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Levine, M. (1996). Educating teachers for restructured schools. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 620-647). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Lewis, A. C. (2002). School reform and professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(7), 488-489.
Lipman, P. (1999). Race, class and power in school restructuring. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teacher’s professional development in a climate of education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Pritchard, F., & Ancess, J. (1999). The effects of professional development schools: A literature review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED448155)
Rentel, V. M. (1992, May). Preparing clinical faculty: Research on teacher reasoning. Paper presented at a conference on faculty development, Washington, DC.
Steffy, B. E., Wolfe, M. P., Pasch, S. H., & Enz, B. J. (Eds.). (1999). Life cycle of the career teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
31
Timperley, H., & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing teacher professional learning: An alternative policy approach to strengthening valued outcomes for diverse learners. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 328-369.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217-247.
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (2001). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In D. Boesel (Ed.) Continuing professional development: Improving teacher quality: Imperative for educational reform (pp. 19-50). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved July 16, 2003, from http://www.ericsp.org/pages/digests/ConProfDev.pdf
Wise, A. E., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1987). Licensing teachers: Design for a profession. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Wynne, J. T. (1999, April). The elephant in the living room: Racism in school reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED436614)
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298-330). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Problem Based Learning/Essential Questions
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J., (2006). Understanding by Design: A Framework for Effecting Curricular Development and Assessment, 2nd ed., Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Alexandria, VA
32
APPENDIX A – RESEARCH ALIGNMENT TABLE
Recommendations from Teacher Education Research
Elements of New CSU Teacher License Program
Recruit good candidates Admission requirements have been increased (see p. 13)
Structure student teaching assignments that are longer than one semester, well supervised, and well constructed
Students begin field work in their first semester of education courses (year 2 spring of a 4 year program) and continue every semester
“Focus teacher preparation on the foundations of skilled beginning practice” (Wilson, 2011, p. 67)
In the second semester (fall 3) pre-service teachers are introduced to instruction and assessment strategies
Include intensive, connected clinical training Each semester pre-service teachers are engaged in field courses, campus courses, and a seminar which ties it all together through the focus on answering an essential question
Include content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge such that no one type of knowledge is more important than the other
Content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge are weaved throughout every semester of the program
Include high quality modeling Guidelines are suggested for p-12 partners, schools, and mentor teachers (see p. 21)
Candidates should learn specific and varying practices, district curricula and how to assess students
Instruction and assessment are the focus of the second professional semester (fall 3)
Candidates should engage in relevant content Field courses will ensure content is relevant to what is happening in schools
Candidates should learn to be diagnosticians around teaching and learning (the graduating teacher should not only know about a variety of strategies and assessment techniques, but know when and why to use the techniques)
The structure of the program, seminars, and essential questions facilitate the type of thinking required for teachers to move toward being diagnosticians
33
APPENDIX B – MODEL PROGRAMS
CSU CREATE Team members researched the following programs in an effort to identify program elements and structures which could inform the development of the New CSU Teacher License Program:
1. iTEACHAZ – Arizona State University
2. TERI – University of Minnesota
3. Project Aspire – The Ohio State University
4. University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Teacher in Residence Program
5. Teach Next Year Program – University of Massachusetts at Boston
6. National Louis University (NLU)/Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL) Urban Teacher Residency
7. Boston College “PedLabs”
8. Montclair State University (part of National Network for Educational Renewal)
9. Hunter College Urban Teacher Residency in New York City
10. The Boston Teacher Residency (BTR) program, a partnership between the University of Massachusetts Boston, the Boston Public Schools, and the Boston Plan for Excellence
11. St. Cloud State University “co-teaching” approach
12. The University of Chicago Urban Teacher Education Program
13. Teacher U., a partnership between Uncommon Schools, KIPP, and Achievement First, three of the highest performing charter school networks in the country
14. Baylor University partnership with the Waco Independent School District
