FOCUSED
INSTITUTIONAL REPORT
For the
National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
Focused 
Accreditation Site Visit
October 30th - November 1st, 2005
David M. Byrd, Ph.D.
Director,
Ron DiOrio
NCATE Coordinator
Director, Office of Teacher Education
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
I. Introduction |
3-5 |
|
II. Vision Statement |
4 |
|
III. Mission Statement |
4 |
|
IV. Conceptual Framework-Advanced Programs |
5-8 |
|
8-17 |
|
| Assessment System | 8 |
| Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation | 11 |
| Use of Data for Program Improvement | 15 |
|
16 |
|
|
18 |
|
|
19 |
|
|
20 |
|
|
20-25 |
|
| Unit Leadership and Authority | 20 |
| Unit Budget | 21 |
| Personnel | 21 |
| Unit Facilities | 22 |
| Unit Resources including Technology | 23 |
|
23 |
|
|
24 |
|
|
25 |
|
|
25 |
|
|
VII. Bibliography |
26-28 |
|
Tables and Charts |
|
|
4 |
|
|
Table
2- Advanced Program Themes, Sample Assessments, Rationale, and Form of
Assessment |
6-7 |
| Table 3- Current Assessment Points- Advanced Programs |
12-14 |
The University of Rhode Island, chartered in 1888 as the state’s land grant institution, is the principal public research and graduate institution in the state, with the main campus in Kingston, Rhode Island located 30 miles south of Providence. Providence, the state’s capital, is located in the northeastern metropolitan corridor between New York City and Boston. In order for the University to better achieve its land grant, sea grant, and urban grant missions, campuses were added in western Rhode Island, on Narragansett Bay, and in Providence. Although the campuses represent diverse environments and serve different purposes, none is very far from the others in such a small state. The University’s mission includes expanding knowledge, transmitting it, and fostering its application. The University highlights its traditions of research, teaching, and service in the areas of natural resources, marine sciences, and the urban atmosphere. Its pledge to students includes providing strong undergraduate programs to promote students’ ethical development and capabilities as critical and independent thinkers. The University strives to meet the rapidly changing needs of the state, country, and the world through academic programs in liberal arts and sciences. It makes every effort to stay at the top of technological advancements made in this innovative society. It serves 11,298 undergraduate and 2,979 graduate students, and has a tenure-track faculty of approximately 600. The School of Education has 362 undergraduate students and 298 graduate students, with a tenure-track faculty of 35, including those who contribute to teacher preparation but are housed outside of the School of Education.
The School of Education (SOE) unit is located within the College of Human Sciences and Services. The SOE was proposed to the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education on July 1st, 1997, based on recommendations of the URI Faculty Senate, to create an integrative unit with the responsibility for the preparation of PK-12 educators within the University. The School was actually inaugurated in 1999. The unit includes the former Department of Education and Office of Teacher Education as well as all the faculty and programs designed to prepare PK-12 professionals, regardless of where they are based on campus (i.e. School Psychology, School Library/Media Specialist, and Music Education Programs are housed outside the College of Human Sciences and Services, while Physical Education, Early Childhood Education, and Speech/Language Pathology exist in separate departments within the college).
The definition of the unit reads “Within the overall structure of the University the School of Education operates as a professional community and is clearly identified as the academic unit with the responsibility, authority, and personnel to develop, administer, evaluate and revise all professional education programs. The professional education faculty are actively involved in the organization and coordination of the unit.” The unit seeks to integrate the strengths of the University with those of partners in communities, the private sector, public agencies, and the policy community to promote the highest levels of learning and achievement for all students and the positive development and well being of children, youth, adult learners, and families. The unit expresses commitment to the fundamental concepts of diversity and social justice. Initial certification is offered at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. At the undergraduate level, students pursue degrees in early childhood education, elementary education, secondary education (English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies/History, and Foreign Language), music education, and physical education. Initial certification is also offered at the graduate level, for those who already have a baccalaureate degree in relevant fields. Certification for school library media specialist, school psychology, and speech/language pathology is offered at the graduate level. Advanced programs include the Master of Arts in education (reading, elementary, and secondary education), the Master of Music in music education, the Master of Science in physical education or school psychology, the Ph.D. in school psychology, and the Ph.D. in education. The Ph.D. in education is offered as a joint program with Rhode Island College and is designed to prepare leaders for research-based improvement of public education. The unit also offers an optional endorsement in middle level education.
The unit’s advanced programs are displayed below:
Table 1: Unit Advanced Programs
University of Rhode Island Teacher Education Programs,
Academic Schools/Departments & Colleges, Faculty Contacts, Directors/Chairs, Deans
Program
Department/School
Telephone Faculty
Contact Director/Chair
College
Graduate Programs - Masters, Graduate Teacher Certification
Education Education - Chafee 705 874-4068 John Boulmetis David Byrd HSS
Elementary (MA & MATCP) Peter Adamy
Secondary (MA & MATCP) JoAnn Hammadou
Adult Education (MA) John Boulmetis
Reading Specialist (MA) Theresa Deeney
Student Defined (MA) David Byrd
HDF (MA & TCP) Human Development & Family Studies 874-2150 Diane Horm Barbara Newman HSS
Library Media (MLIS) Library and Information Studies 874-2947 Cheryl McCarthy Michael Havener HSS
Music (MM & TCP) Music - Fine Arts 874-2431 Ron Lee Ron Lee AS
Physical Education (MS) Physical Education and 874-2975 Lori Ciccomascolo Debra Riebe HSS
Exercise Science - Tootell
School Psychology (MS) Psychology 874-2193 Grant Willis John Stevenson AS
Speech-Lang. Path. (MS) Communicative Disorders 874-5969 Jay Singer Jay Singer HSS
Graduate Doctoral
Education* Education 874-2564 Betty Young David Byrd HSS
School Psychology Psychology 874-2193 Grant Willis John Stevenson AS
Arts & Science, Winifred Brownell, Dean
Human Science and Services, Lynn McKinney, Dean
* Joint Program with Rhode Island College
Vision Statement
The University of Rhode Island’s School of Education envisions a world where all children and youth are prepared to meet the challenges of a diverse, ever-evolving, global society embedded in a technological era. To this end, the School and its Faculty are committed to quality research, teaching, and community service partnerships and outreach activities that enhance the knowledge base of all disciplines housed within the school, and are supportive of initiatives designed to exemplify teaching and learning across learners of all ages.
Mission Statement
The mission of the University of Rhode Island’s School of Education is to prepare future professionals to be exemplary practitioners and scholars. To achieve this mission, faculty seek to generate, use, and disseminate knowledge about teaching, learning, and human development and strive to establish and maintain partnerships for the purpose of addressing and resolving critical educational problems that impede and impact the learning of children and youth.
II. Conceptual Framework -Advanced Programs
In addition to strong undergraduate programs, the University, as evidenced in its mission statement, is committed to providing strong graduate programs that promote students' development as both master educators and educational leaders. It is committed to expanding, transmitting, and fostering the application of knowledge for the benefit of the state, the nation and the world.
As stated in The School of Education Mission Statement, the unit seeks to integrate the strengths of the university with those of our partners in communities, the private sector, public agencies and the policy community to promote, together, the highest levels of learning and achievement for all students and the positive development and well-being of children, youth, adult learners, and families.
The School of
Education offers two advanced teacher preparation programs, a Master of Arts in
Education (with Specializations in Adult, Elementary, Secondary and Reading
Education), and a Master of Arts Teacher Certification (MATCP) Program. The two Master's programs also are intended
to provide additional breadth and depth in the competencies of the teacher, and
provide a foundation for advanced graduate study in education. In addition to
the above graduate programs, the SOE partners with the graduate programs in
Library Media, Kinesiology, School Psychology, and Speech & Language
Pathology. Also, there is a Joint PhD in
Education that is operated with URI's sister state
institution,
A key aspect
of the advanced program conceptual framework is
that it is centered on six (6) "themes" or threads woven throughout
program design, coursework, and assessments.
These six themes represent the essential areas of expertise or
competence that accomplished educators should possess. They were identified by faculty to have the
most relevance and applicability to URI’s advanced
program, which intends to develop accomplished practitioners by extending and
elevating the proficiencies acquired through initial teacher training.
These themes
primarily emerged from a thorough review of the current professional literature
related to effective teacher education in contemporary
1.
Develop
deeper understanding of content (depth and breadth)
3.
Actively
participate in a variety of diverse learning communities with commitment to all
students
4.
Develop
scholarly research skills and contribute to new knowledge through scholarly
research and interpretation
5.
Engage
in professional development
Table 2 below lists the Advanced Program
Themes, the joint NCATE/SPA program assessment points, the rationale for the
assessment, and examples of different assessments.
Table 2: Advanced Program Themes, Sample
Assessments,
Rationale, and Form of Assessment
|
Advanced Program Themes |
Name Assessment NCATE SPA |
Rationale |
Form of Assessment (examples) |
|
1.
Develop deeper understanding of content (depth and breadth); |
1.
Highly Qualified 2.
Content Based Assessment |
Candidates
should have a strong background in the subject matter in order to be
effective educators and promote student learning. |
BA
list or reason Highly Qualified: BA, Content Exam, or Housse
“high objective uniform state system of evaluation”
Content
Assessment: Comprehensive examination, (e.g., Provide evidence of application
of your content specific coursework in your own classroom; content pedagogy-
assessment of student work samples Library
and Media Studies: LSC
520: Rubric for Program, Policy, and Procedure (PPP) Manual. |
|
7.
Leadership |
Candidates
should during an advanced preparation program show their ability to improve
the environment in which they work.
Candidates should be agents of school and social change |
Candidates
document leadership and/or scholarly activity in their professional field. Comps/
National Board Leadership Task Field
Experiences, Case Studies, Research Reports, Action Research, Portfolio Tasks
and/or Follow-Up Studies. |
|
|
3.
Actively participate in a variety of diverse learning communities with
commitment to all students |
5.
Effect on student learning |
Candidates must help society realize the democratic
goal of equal educational opportunity for all of the learners in |
Student
work samples, National Board Task, EDC 574 Library
and Media Studies: LSC
596: Portfolio
with documentation of RIBTS/INTASC Standards 5b.
Video of teaching and learning School
Psychology: Consultation
case study Multicultural
competency form |
|
4.
Develop scholarly research skills and contribute to new knowledge through
scholarly research and interpretation |
6.
Research Skills |
Candidates
should be committed to research, to improve their own knowledge and to help
shape change and reform. Research‑based
clinical teacher education should be context sensitive, cumulative and
reflective. |
EDC
574 review of research Thesis, scholarly paper or dissertation PEX
591: Special problems or PEX
599: Thesis project Transcript
Analysis Project Action
Research Library
and Media Studies: LSC
596: Case Study Analysis and problem solving School
Psychology: Thesis
or Research competency (PhD only): Written document and oral defense Dissertation
(PhD only) Written document and oral defense |
|
5.
Engage in professional development. |
7.
Leadership and Professional Development |
Candidates
should play a more active role in their professional development. Candidates
should model modes of thinking that include inquiry, analysis and evaluation
of their own beliefs and practices.
Candidates should be reflective practitioners who continually evaluate
the effects of their choices and actions and who continually seek
opportunities to grow professionally. |
IPlan and/or NBST Tasks Supervisory log, supervisor verification, workshop evaluation MA Secondary Ed: Comprehensive exam question dealing with Leadership and professional development |
|
3.,
4., Clinical Experience |
Candidates
expand their repertoire through research-based practice. Teacher training programs must expose
candidates to ways of teaching with technology. |
Video
Tape lesson with evaluation Internship,
Practicum or Clinical Experience |
Translated into practice, these
six themes drive course syllabi and critical performance assessments and also
provide the structure for program and unit assessment. Instructors use these themes to organize and
deliver course content, depending on the specific nature of the course
(Cochran, DeRuiter & King, 1993),
(Darling-Hammond, 1998), (
Program-level matrices also are
maintained in order to identify when and where specific themes are addressed
within advanced programs, and to ensure that each theme is adequately addressed
throughout programs. Because these
themes are grounded in the RIBTS, NBPTS and SPA propositions and standards,
they provide a shorthand system for referencing specific standards. Matrices also are maintained, which align or
cross-reference themes with all relevant SPA standards (see MA Elementary Education Standards Alignments, MA
Secondary Education Standards Alignments, MA Adult Education Standards
Alignments, MA Reading Education Standards Alignments, MLIS Library and
Information Studies, Library Media Standards Alignments, MS/PhD School
Psychology Standards Alignments, MA/PhD Speech Pathology Standards Alignments,
MS Kinesiology Standards Alignments, MM Music Education and PhD Education
Standards Alignments).
Where unit assessment is concerned, these
six themes are the vehicles through which candidates demonstrate or document
knowledge, skills and dispositions that satisfy each proposition. Formative and summative assessments of
individual candidates are partly based on evidence compiled in the form of a
program portfolio. Portfolios are
evaluated as candidates’ progress through the program.
In summary, the School's
conceptual framework employs a thematic system as the principal vehicle for
ensuring program consistency and unity.
The six themes in this framework build upon the RIBTS standards. When applied to curriculum, instruction,
practice, and assessments. these themes ensure that
various course and program-related experiences occur within well-defined
parameters, and that well-defined, high standards are applied when evaluating
candidate knowledge, skills and dispositions. These themes also are the means
through which candidates demonstrate their individual competencies (Crowther, Kaagen, Ferguson & Hann, 2002).
Over the years the mission of
the
Consequently, our faculty agrees that our
collective and collaborative efforts should be focused upon developing
professionals who model reflective practice, facilitation of change, and
scholarly inquiry (Henson, 1996), (Garet, 2001, et al). All advanced programs include these guiding
principles within the coursework and within the fieldwork that advanced
students experience (McKerrow, Dunn &
Killian, 2003).
The
Since the
focus is graduate education, it should be no surprise that our faculty have
included scholarly inquiry as one of the foci of advanced programs. Our students are prepared to assume
leadership roles in solving educational and social problems within their
professional environments through the acquisition of knowledge and professional
development in a research oriented environment (Burnaford,
Fischer & Hobson, 2001).
Finally, the
vision and mission statements as well as the conceptual framework were all
voted on and approved by
III. STANDARD 2. Assessment
System and Unit Evaluation
The unit has
an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant
qualifications, the candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to
evaluate and improve the unit and its program.
The assessment system for the
The
UAS is consistent with the
The heart of the Unit
Assessment System is our Data Management System. The data management system facilitates entry,
analyses and reporting of data for unit and program reviews. The data
management system utilizes three database systems. The first (FileMaker Pro) is used to input
data on student admissions, approval and movement to student teaching or final
practicum, program exit/completion and analyses of data for program improvement
(e.g., exit surveys). The second, major
database is the University's student information database PeopleSoft, which
provides information for updating and review of student status, progress and
graduation. The third major system is in
the process of moving from the internal Efolio System designed at URI to a
commercial candidate portfolio system True Outcomes. In this new portfolio system all programs
will assess candidate outcomes (e.g. planning for instruction, assessment of
student work) and maintain these data in the True Outcomes database.
Efforts have been made to eliminate bias and maintain fairness, accuracy, and consistency during the assessment process. For example, efforts include multiple assessors for key assessments (admission, portfolios, comprehensive exams, thesis, student teaching or primary internships), and sessions during which faculty are trained as assessors. Training focuses on the process to be used, the questions to be asked, and scoring of portfolio evidence. Generally an experienced member is paired with a less experienced person in order to model the procedure. The process of evaluating students is the responsibility of program faculty who work within a team structure (e.g., early childhood, elementary, secondary, physical education). Several teams collaborate when training cooperating teachers where appropriate. Teams review the performance of the assessment system, including admissions, on a continuous basis during regularly scheduled team meetings. Criteria, application forms, interview questions, directions for tasks, rubrics, are evaluated and revised based on program data and candidate feedback.
Potential bias is also addressed through
unit or university policies:
- Course syllabi should include the following
statement: “Any student with a documented disability is welcome to
contact me as early in the semester as possible so that we may arrange
reasonable accommodations. As part of this process, please be in
touch with Disability Services for
Students office at 330 Memorial
- University policies on candidate complaints are formalized and clearly outline.
- Office of Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity, and Diversity
- University Ombud,
- Policies and Procedures Appendix E. University Policies and Procedures on Grievance and on Discrimination (From the URI Student Handbook, Sections 21 and 19 Respectively).
- Graduate Student Academic Appeals
- Requested candidate
exceptions to program requirements reviewed by advisor,
program, university.
- Candidates evaluate faculty and the results of
these evaluations are part of the annual review, promotion and tenure
process.
Teacher education program
faculty members have collaborated across programs at both the undergraduate and
graduate levels to identify a set of Core Beliefs about Teacher Education and
program themes for the graduate program.
When the Rhode Island
Beginning Teacher Standards were adopted, faculty reviewed these Core Beliefs
and correlated them to these new standards, which are based on the Interstate
New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium’s (INTASC) Beginning Teacher
Standards (1993). A key aspect of the advanced program conceptual framework is
that it is centered on six (6) "themes" or threads woven throughout
program design, coursework, and assessments, as mentioned earlier. These six themes represent the essential
areas of expertise or competence that accomplished educators should
possess. They were identified by faculty
to have the most relevance and applicability to URI’s
advanced program which intends to develop accomplished practitioners by
extending and elevating the proficiencies acquired through initial teacher
training. At the advanced level, these themes
primarily emerged from a thorough review of the current professional literature
related to effective teacher education in contemporary
1.
Develop
deeper understanding of content (depth and breadth);
(Cochran, DeRuiter,
King, 1993), (Darling-Hammond, 1998), (
3.
Actively
participate in a variety of diverse learning communities with commitment to all
students;
(
4.
Develop
scholarly research skills and contribute to new knowledge through scholarly
research and interpretation;
(Burnaford,
Fischer, & Hobson, 2001), (Clark, & Erikson,
2003), (Henson, 1996)
5.
Engage
in professional development;
(Cohen, McLaughlin, &
Talbert, 1993), (Garet, Birman,
Porter, Desimeone, Herman, & Suk
Yoon, 1999), (Garet, Porter, Desimeone,
Birman, & Yoon, 2001)
Data Collection, Analysis and Evaluation
The Unit Assessment System (UAS) is used to provide data on both
candidate performance and program effectiveness. Program Assessment Committees and the Unit
Assessment Committee collect data from candidate assessments and
on unit operations. The
The
program level and unit level assessments provide consistent data tied to the Conceptual Framework for candidate
and program review. The program-level critical performance assessments and
follow-up data from programs (e.g., graduate surveys, licensure exams) serve as
evidence for unit-level assessments. All
programs are currently modifying their program-level assessments in order to
provide more common data for aggregation.
Presently data are collected on each of the following:
- Licensure assessment, or other content-based assessment
- Content-based assessment
- Assessment of candidate ability to plan instruction
- Assessment of internship, practicum, or other clinical experience
- Assessment of candidate effect on student learning
- Additional assessment SPA or program based
- Additional assessment SPA or program based (optional)
- Additional assessment SPA or program based (optional) - (NCATE SPA 2004)
A report at the program level is written
which analyzes the data from assessments above (1-8). The report represents how the data are used
to improve both candidate performance and program quality (see program data). This description, while based on individual
assessments (1-8 above), is a summary of findings, the faculty’s
interpretations, and changes made in the program. Data from program reports and other data
(surveys of graduates, licensure data, external
reviews) are collected at the unit level, analyzed and reported, in order to
provide data for future improvement plans. Each report describes steps taken to
use information from assessments to improve both candidate performance and the
program outcomes. This information is organized around (1) content knowledge,
(2) pedagogical and professional knowledge, skill, and dispositions, and (3)
effects on student learning and on creating environments that support
learning. At the initial level,
candidate performance data on critical performances have been collected every
semester within the e-folio system. At
the advanced level, program faculty are now collecting candidate performance
data on similar critical performances that can be compared across programs and
will be added to the unit’s new electronic portfolio system. See “Expansion of the portfolio system to include
tasks addressing advanced programs” in Examples of Change.
Figure 1 Unit Assessment identifies the
relationship of programs to the unit during the assessment process. Central to this process is the collection of
data from program and unit assessments, a data management system, unit and
program assessment committees, the Council of Teacher Education, an assessment
coordinator and the unit director.
Unit
Operations and Program Assessments are intended to systematically collect data
central to the operation of units and programs. For the unit this includes data
on:
1.
Advisement – e.g., program, career
2.
Instruction – e.g., teaching,
evaluation, clinical experiences, course logistics
3.
Records – e.g., programs of study,
check sheets, licensure
4.
Resources – e.g., facilities,
personnel, equipment/technology, funding
5.
Faculty Matters—e.g., workload,
evaluation/performance reviews, diversity, development, voice
6.
Candidate Matters – e.g., diversity,
complaints, student groups, communications
7.
Staff Matters – e.g., diversity,
workload, evaluation/performance reviews, development, voice
8.
Organization– e.g., governance,
management, climate
The responsibility to summarize and analyze
the unit data is distributed across the Office of Teacher Education
and SOE director's office. For example,
the director's staff aggregates the data from the exit survey and the
candidates' e-folio performances.
Program team leaders summarize individual program data, which are first
disseminated through the team leaders meetings and then SOE meetings. The director's graduate assistant collects
and inputs candidate performance data and uploads data to the SOE server. The
Office of Teacher Education collects and summarizes, for example, Praxis
scores, internship placement data, and decision letters.
Individual programs also collect data to
help in the assessment of candidates and of programs themselves. Data include:
1.
Learning Products–institutional,
state and professional society standards, professional
knowledge/skills/dispositions and impact on student learning, and specified
proficiencies.
2.
Transition Points – pre-specified
program transition points (e.g., program admission or exit)
3.
Program Components – learning
products aggregated by courses, field experiences, and other such curricular
elements
4. Post-Program Assessments – follow-up surveys of program completers and their employers as well as results from state licensure tests and external reviews (e.g., state program reviews).
Table 3: Current Assessment Points Advanced Programs
|
|
Admissions |
Prior to Practicum or Comprehensive Exam |
Practicum |
Program Completion |
Post Graduate |
|
Early Childhood Education |
Application review •candidate statement (goals & fit w/program) •undergraduate preparation & GPA •standardized test scores (MAT or GRE) •letters of recommendation |
New program in development |
New program in development |
1. Comprehensive Exam 2. Required thesis 3. Program Portfolio |
Exit survey |
|
Elementary Education |
Admissions portfolio
|
1. Instructional Unit Plans (Science and Social Studies) EDC 517/518 2. Lesson Plan (English/Language Arts) EDC 528 3. Final Exam EDC 529 4. Debate EDC 570 |
n/a |
1. Comprehensive Exam 2. Field Study EDC 575 |
Exit survey |
|
Kinesiology |
1.Admissions Application packet 2.Transcript |
1. Special Problems Paper or Thesis Project 2. Lesson Plan PEX 552 3. Self & Peer Evaluation PEX 552 4. Assessment Project PEX 552 5. Curriculum Project PEX 520 |
n/a |
Comprehensive Exam |
Exit survey |
|
Principals (Aspiring) |
1. Previous experience teaching/coaching 2. Completed bachelor’s degree |
EDC 575 supervised Field Study
|
Semester Internship Evaluation |
1. Comprehensive Exam 2. Research Night Presentation |
Exit Survey |
|
Reading Education |
1. Application review (undergraduate records, experience, knowledge, skills, dispositions) 2. Formal interview
|
Transcript Analysis Project EDC 562X
|
1. Supervisory log w/ supervisor verification & workshop evaluation EDC 594 2. Case Study EDC 566 3. Video Case Analysis EDC 566 4. Diagnostic Profile w/ recommendations & lesson plan EDC 566 |
1. Comprehensive Exam 2. Formal interview |
1. Interview 2. Written questionnaire |
|
School Library Media |
Admissions checklist to MLS program |
LSC 520: 1. Instructional Unit
2. Case study analysis presentation 3. Final Exam |
LSC 596: 1. Portfolio of Lesson Plans 2. Videotape of teaching & learning 3. Site Visit reports 4. Case Study Analysis and Problem Solving |
1, Comprehensive Exam 2. Praxis II licensure exam 3. Personal Statement and resume |
Exit survey
|
|
School Psychology |
1.GRE scores 2. Letters of recommendation 3. Goals statement 4.GPA 5. Interview |
--Qualifying exam: Specified courses (PhD) -- Faculty rating scale: Annual Student Evaluation --Consultation case study (MS)
--Thesis or research competency (PhD only) written document and oral defense --Qualifying exam (specific to coursework) (PhD) |
Supervisory Rating Scale / Internship Evaluation |
1. Dissertation (PhD only) (a) Written document (b) Oral defense 2. Praxis II Series School Psychologists Exam (MS) |
Exit survey |
|
Secondary Education |
1. Must meet standards for “Highly Qualified” (i.e. have BA in content area or pass standardized test for content area) 2. Interview 3. Letters of Recommendation 4. GPA |
1. Research review EDC 574 2. Assessment of student work w/ unit plan EDC 574
|
n/a |
1. GPA in content courses 2. Comprehensive exam
|
Exit survey |
|
URI/RIC PhD in Education |
1. GRE scores 2. Letters of recommendation 3. Professional goals statement 4. GPAs 5. Interview |
1.Qualifying exam for low GPA or lack of master’s degree 2.Annual student progress evaluation 3.Completion of Core Seminars, research strand, and specialization coursework |
1.Dissertation proposal approval 2.Annual student progress evaluation |
1.GPA in courses 2.Written Comprehensive exam 3.Oral comprehensive exam 4.Dissertation defense |
Survey of graduates |
The
Use
of Data for Program Improvement
The unit systematically examines data to evaluate its programs and
operations and uses these data to make program improvements. Prior to the
development of our current UAS, the unit had existing evaluation procedures at
both the initial and advanced levels.
Many of the procedures and measures are now part of the new assessment
plan (e.g., admission criteria and instrumentation, candidate performance on
various major assessments, (planning for instruction, assessment of student
progress, comprehensive exams, practicum evaluations)
and surveys of graduates and employers). Improvements to the program have been
based on analyses of these data.
However, we believe the new assessment plan provides a more systematic
process for program review across programs, especially at the advanced level.
Program changes resulting from such data are found in each of the advanced program reviews and documented in program improvement through changes made to courses,
programs, and the unit in response to data gathered from the assessment system. For
example, the current electronic portfolio system software as well as how the
system was utilized across programs was judged to be inadequate. The data for this perception came from a
number of sources including analyses of program data, comments from candidates
in both initial and advanced programs, and external review by both NCATE and
the State. The in house efolio system
was not meeting the growing and evolving needs of the SOE. A recommendation was
made to choose a new system in order to better prepare prospective educators.
The SOE adopted a new electronic portfolio system to assess students’
progression throughout the program. This
system will be linked with the E-campus and PeopleSoft student administration
systems currently in use University-wide, and will therefore ensure greater
levels of support and data management.
In response to the 2003 visit of the NCATE Board of
Examiners, faculty then realized that our conceptual framework that was based
on the Rhode Island Beginning Teaching Standards (RIBTS) was inadequate to
address the needs of candidates in advanced programs. Therefore, a lengthy study for a revised
conceptual framework began that would be better geared to the goals of advanced
programs and would be unique and specific to the
While the
The development of a common rubric for comprehensive examinations
has risen out of a need for the SOE to streamline its assessment system in
order to more succinctly identify and address student needs while weighing those
against the demands that will be placed upon them as teachers in the future.
Over the past year, the graduate team of the SOE drafted this common rubric,
which was then presented to the Council for Teacher Education and adopted for
use throughout the SOE. The common rubric for the grading of comprehensive
exams allows faculty within the SOE to analyze how well their teaching and
their programs (i.e. elementary, secondary, reading education) serve students
relative to how their students perform on various elements of the comprehensive
exam.
While we are in the beginning of implementation the Unit
Assessment Plan we are already seeing the benefits of the collection data on
candidate performance and unit operations on common themes across programs. These data has been openly shared across
programs. Evidence of reviews and related discussions can be found in program data, and in the SOE and Council of Teacher Education meeting minutes. The UAS calls
for the examination of data at multiple points in the course of the program
including: admission, movement to practicum or comps, completion, and after
program completion.
An example of the implementation is the new candidate exit survey. The Council of Teacher
Education crafted the survey over the past year for use across the unit.
Results from this and other reviews are reported in various places throughout
this report.
Data are shared with candidates on their performance and status at
each transition point either by an advisor or through informational group
meetings. Candidates who have not made adequate progress are provided with
feedback individually. Plans for
improvement are implemented at both the course and program level. During coursework candidates receive feedback
on their performance, on both summative critical performances and of a
formative nature. Data are shared among
program faculty at program team meetings (secondary education team, elementary
education team, graduate/advanced program team). In these sessions faculty
compare and discuss candidate outcomes
during which plans for improvement are discussed and decided.
Additional Information on Areas Cited for Improvement
The assessment system does not include a plan for the assessment of
unit operations.
ACTION:
The plan for the assessment of the unit
operations within the
Unit Operations and Program Assessments
are intended to systematically collect data central to the operation of units
and programs. For the unit this includes data on:
1.
Advisement
– e.g., program, career
2.
Instruction
– e.g., teaching, evaluation, clinical experiences, course logistics
3.
Records
– e.g., programs of study, check sheets, licensure
4.
Resources
– e.g., facilities, personnel, equipment/technology, funding
5.
Faculty
Matters—e.g., workload, evaluation/performance reviews, diversity, development,
voice
6.
Candidate
Matters – e.g., diversity, complaints, student groups, communications
7.
Staff
Matters – e.g., diversity, workload, evaluation/performance reviews,
development, voice
8.
Organization–
e.g., governance, management, climate
As part of the
strategic plan for the
Our first area of review was the net
contribution (direct revenue minus expenses) for programs in the
Our
second area of review was relative to the level of funding the School of
Education has received for activities that have increased our outreach and
visibility (e.g., Teacher Quality Enhancement 7.5 million Federal,
Special Education State, GEMS-NET, NSF
Proposals, NCPE, RITTI, PT3, PEMS, etc.). We
hope to expand our service to the state through further grant supported
activities, expand our support to urban schools and our partnership districts,
prepare educators in areas of high need and promote education intervention in
support of a social justice agenda (e.g., Aspiring Principals – Providence;
math, science, special education, ESL teacher enhancement through the TQE grant
- Pawtucket, Central Falls, Newport; and support for the President’s launching
of the Providence based charter/alternative school). The
We
are also monitoring our increasing levels of outreach. In fall 2004, we
received a 7.5 million five year federal Teacher
Quality Enhancement Grant to support Project RITER (Rhode Island Teacher Education Renewal). RITER is a partnership composed of all 8
approved teacher preparation programs in Rhode Island (Brown University,
Johnson and Wales, Providence College, Rhode Island College, Rhode Island
School of Design, Roger Williams, Salve Regina, University of Rhode Island),
the arts and science faculties at these institutions, 3 high need school
districts (Central Falls, Newport and Pawtucket), the 2 state education
agencies (Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and
Rhode Island Office of Higher Education) and a business partner (TBA
Consultants). This proposal represents a commitment to build on current efforts
to reform teacher education and to strengthen the preparation of the next
generation of
In
addition, we also have a number of outreach activities with partner
districts/schools, teacher associations (e.g., math - Prime Time Central Falls,
science - GEMS/NET state
wide, reading - RIAFT/Reading First), an ongoing relationship with the Rhode
Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for the development and
implementation of Individual Professional Development Plans (IPlans) completed by all certified educators, our work as
the administrative entity for National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards and the Aspiring Principals development program with the Providence
Public Schools, URI’s Academic Academy, a school with
the social justice goal of educating young adults who leave the Rhode Island
Training School, initiated by President Carothers.
<<back
AREA FOR
IMPROVEMENT 2.2: The unit lacks coordination in collecting, summarizing,
analyzing, and disseminating data within and among programs in the unit.
ACTION:
The
Our
electronic portfolio (e-folio) project has brought together all teacher
education programs in a joint activity.
Each of the programs has been examining ways in which they could respond
to new requirements of their individual specialty professional associations,
Rhode Island INTASC-based Teacher Education Program Approval and national
accreditation through the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE). Each of these constituencies calls for
the development and implementation of systems that better monitor the
performance of students and the measures of program success. With funding available through the Rhode
Island Office of Higher Education, the Rhode Island Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education, the federal government and with the support of the
university we have joined together to address the goal:
…the
development of an on-line, web-based system that allows teacher education
students to capture, organize and edit samples of their work and provides easy
search, index and evaluation capabilities for faculty and students. We are in the process of developing a
web-based electronic portfolio system. The system will be able to not only
collect student work, but also to provide efficient ways for individual
instructors to review and provide feedback on student work. Currently, students
in the
A portfolio development
room has been secured and equipped. Although the electronic portfolio operates
primarily as a web-based system, a room has been set aside and equipped in
support of the project. This room houses
a graduate assistant assigned by the
Curricula in each of the program areas have been aligned with their programs’ SPA professional standards through courses and specific assessment points (e.g., admission, comprehensive exams, and critical performances at program exit). Candidates will be asked to demonstrate their achievement relative to program standards by completing activities that lead to products connected to their program standards. The students will then enter these work products into their electronic portfolio. These portfolios, then, will be maintained over a student’s URI career and serve as evidence of their capabilities.
The next phase
of collaboration and dissemination will be to include school-based and
community involvement at this unit level, rather than just at the program
level.
(Advanced preparation) The unit's assessment system does not include advanced programs.
ACTION:
To guide program reviews, the School of
Education specifies that each unit program (initial and advanced), through the
Council for Teacher Education establishes and maintains a Program Assessment
Plan and conducts
a program assessment review at least once annually in accordance with that
plan. In accordance with this plan these data contribute to the Unit
Assessment System. A minimum requirement of the program assessment plans
is that they specify at least four
transition points across the program: (1) program admission, (2) admission to
clinical practice, (3) exit from clinical practice, and (4) program exit. At
each transition point, candidates are to be informed of their program status,
and a mechanism is to be established to define options for candidates who fail
to meet established criteria. In some advanced programs (e.g., where clinical
practice occurs throughout the program), some of these four transition points
may be merged. To implement its program assessment plan, each program has identified transition
points and associated evaluations/criteria and identified/developed
standards-related assessments and associated rubrics. Assessment data are
collected and annually aggregated and summary reports generated for programs to
review and make potential recommendations.
The unit is responsible for collection of data related to the unit’s conceptual
framework and the NCATE program outline (e.g., content, planning, evaluation of
practicum, assessment of students). The
programs are responsible for collection of data relative to meeting the
standards for their professional organizations (e.g., School Psychology,
Library Media, Physical Education, and
(Advanced preparation) The unit does not evaluate its conceptual
framework.
ACTION:
We have expanded
our conceptual framework with special emphasis on advanced programs and
developed a plan for the collection of data both at the program and the unit
level. We have also reviewed the vision
and mission statements for the
The revised
advanced program framework is centered on six (6) "themes" or threads
woven throughout program design, coursework, and assessments. These six themes represent the essential
areas of expertise or competence that accomplished educators should
possess. They were identified by faculty
as the most relevant and applicable to an advanced program such as URI's, which intends to develop accomplished practitioners
by extending and elevating the proficiencies acquired through initial teacher training.
These themes
primarily emerged from a thorough review of the current professional literature
related to effective teacher education in contemporary
IV. STANDARD 6. Unit
Governance and Resources
The unit has
the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources,
including information technology resources, for the preparation of candidates
to meet professional, state, and institutional standards.
On July 1, 1997 – the School
of Education (SOE) was created by the Rhode Island Board of Governors for
Higher Education (RIBGHE), based on recommendations of the
Faculty Senate, to create an integrative unit with responsibility for the
preparation of P-12 educators within the
The definition of the unit as
approved by the RIBGHE reads, “Within the overall structure of the University
the
The
organization of the unit now
includes a reinstated
Council of
Teacher Education, which is an advisory board comprised of
program leaders from the School of Education (Elementary, Secondary, Graduate),
the College of Arts and Sciences (Music, School Psychology, Library Media - LIS),
Physical Education in the Department of Kinesiology, Early Childhood in the
Department Human Development and Family Studies, a student and up to 3 persons
external to the University, and representatives from the Deans' offices of Arts
and Sciences and Human Science and Services.
Funding
for support of school personnel preparation is the majority of the budget in
the SOE and represents the primary basis for support of the unit. Institutional
budget comparisons are difficult since the SOE is somewhat unique within the
University structure. Allocations do
permit faculty teaching, scholarship and service to continue and we continue to
have an impact on PK-12 education and our colleagues in the
Colleges of Arts and
Sciences and Environment and Life Sciences.
High quality work continues within the unit with support coming both
from the unit budget but also significant resources from external grants and
projects (see SOE
Budget) (SOE
Budget Grants 2003-2005) (AIIM
data on research dollars, overhead, ratio of credit hours per faculty, majors
per faculty, trend and tuition income, net revenue per faculty ratio) (PCA Revenue
Comparisons) (Budget
to Comparable Units on Campus).
Workload policies and practices permit and encourage faculty not only to be engaged in a wide range of professional activities including teaching, scholarship assessment, advisement, work in schools and service, but also to professionally contribute to a community, state, regional or national basis. Evidence that faculty engage in effective teaching can be seen in the SET scores from the last two semesters (Fall 2004/ Spring 2005).As evidenced in our chart and summary data, faculty in the School of Education, in the vast majority of areas, exceeds the University average for teacher effectiveness at the undergraduate lower division, upper division and graduate levels. On a 5 point scale scores range from 4.2 to 4.38 for all categories.
Policies and faculty assignments are
governed by the
URI Collective Bargaining Agreement-Workload. Faculty workload is governed by many factors
including, but not limited to, teaching, serving on committees, student
advising, scholarly activities, and service to the university and community.
The contract outlines a teaching load of 9 credit hours per semester. However, the Director sets the specific load
on a yearly basis (see workload
policies document). For example, there is additional
release time for Team Leaders, recognizing the time and effort needed to
coordinate program teams. In addition, the Director has allocated reassigned
time to coordinate programs, conduct research, and pursue special
projects. Faculty workloads for the last
3 semesters will be available in the evidence room for Standard 6.
The
The evaluation criteria supports the
broad emphasis above in that they include the following:
• Demonstrated ability to teach
effectively and/or perform effectively in other current assignments;
• Scholarly or creative achievements or
research;
• Evidence of continuing preparation and
study;
• Contribution to student growth and
development; and
• Service to the university and
community.
The workload policies have resulted in
faculty who contribute leadership internally in the institution, to the public
schools and to national, state and local organizations.
The Unit’s use of part time faculty is purposeful and
contributes to the quality of the programs. Unit policy has been reviewed with
regard to the definition, status, and hiring criteria of part-time faculty.
This policy presently requires that all faculty hires have an earned doctorate
or have exceptional expertise in their fields that qualify them for their
assignment.
All programs supplement the full time
faculty with part-time faculty who contribute practical, school based knowledge
to the preparation of the teacher candidates. The various programs supplement
the work of the regular faculty in a combination of ways:
·
Through
grants and or district matching funds such as Gems-Net, a nationally funded
science-education project. Gems-Net brings distinguished science educators from
the K-6 schools to SOE for an academic year to become teachers in residence.
While at URI, the teachers in residence teach, in collaboration with and under
the supervision of Dr. Young, the science methods course for elementary teacher
candidates. Along with Dr. Young, the teachers in residence contribute to the
significant numbers of in-service hours to schools generated by the GEMS-NET
Project; teachers in residence return to their classrooms and continue to be
involved through accepting field placement and student teachers and sometimes
continue their involvement with URI by teaching sections of math or science
courses.
·
All programs
involve distinguished teachers who are ready to use their retirement status to
continue to contribute to the improvement of teaching and learning. Frequently
the adjunct faculty has successfully served as cooperating teachers in the
past. Sometimes they have been recruited by URI faculty familiar with their
work from supervising student teachers.
·
The PhD program in Education is also
a fruitful source of part-time faculty for the teacher education programs. Some
work for the programs after graduation while they continue in their district
leadership work; others develop expertise in teacher education while pursing
their studies in the program. A list of
adjunct faculty is can be
viewed from the evidence chart for Standard 6.
Clinical
faculty are included in
the unit as valued colleagues in the preparation of teacher candidates. In the
organization of the SOE, provision was made for the appointment of a range of
clinical faculty. Clinical faculty were described in
the planning stage as teachers on leave or other practitioners who come to URI
for periods up to three years. In addition, provision was made for clinical
adjunct faculty who might be public school-based with continuing, part-time
appointments with teaching and program responsibilities in SOE. In order to
facilitate the involvement of non-traditional faculty, the originating
documents developing the SOE specified that “the non-voting faculty with the schools
shall have voice in all matters while not having a vote. In other matters
pertaining to their employment they shall treated with the respect afforded
faculty with full membership within the school of education.”
Support staff assist faculty in their teaching, research, advising, and grant activities. Investment has been made in the support staff through regular upgrading department office workstations.
The
The unit has office and meeting rooms on
the 6thand 7th floors of the
Unit
Resources including Technology
The unit has secured resources to support
high quality and exemplary programs and projects to ensure that candidates meet
standards. Budget documents in the evidence file for Standard 6 document the
success of the unit in securing external funding.
This funding ensures that candidates meet
the standards. For example, through Rhode Island Teachers and Technology
Initiative (RITTI) and Preparing
Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) grants, faculty supervising
student teachers have access to laptops to facilitate communication between the
university supervisors, cooperating teachers and student teachers. This
communication is of vital importance in ensuring that teacher candidates at URI
demonstrate mastery of the
RIBTS during
student teaching. URI teacher education candidates are facilitated in reaching
the RIBTS through the outcome-based tasks that are submitted to the e-folio.
Furthermore, the use of the e-folio system in and of itself facilitates the
development of the technology skills and competencies in the teacher
candidates. We continue to secure technology related grants most recently a
federally supported Teacher Quality Enhancement
Grant for 7.5 million dollars which has as one of its objectives the
enhancement of technology as it relates to building content expertise.
The unit’s assessment system has been
developed and funded through a variety of grant sources. Funding sources
include the
Development of an on-line, web-based
portfolio system that allows teacher education students to capture, organize
and edit samples of their work and provides easy search, index, and evaluation
capabilities for faculty and students. This process allows us to use
technological advances in communication, including electronic means of
collecting and sharing information to enrich our classes, our discourse with students
and the feedback we give to students.
Faculty and candidates have access to
exemplary library resources through the creative sharing of public and private
higher education resources statewide.
Additional Information on Areas Cited for Improvement
The unit does not have a recognized coordinating policy-making body
to monitor the quality and consistency of all academic programs that prepare
school professionals.
ACTION:
“Within the overall structure of the
University the
During the
past year the Council has been reinstituted with representation from teacher
education programs across campus. In the
coming year the Council will be expanded to include both internal and external
representatives. The Council has met
regularly and has reviewed the unit’s Conceptual Framework,
Strategic Plan, the
Unit Assessment Plan and its implementation, and other activities related to
unit governance. Along with the regular
meetings of the SOE, program teams, and the Council, coordination and
policy-making has moved forward to monitor the quality and consistency of
academic programs. The Council for
Teacher Education provides a forum for coordination, planning, evaluation, and
promotion of teacher education at the
As envisioned,
the Council serves in an advisory capacity to all teacher education programs in
the development of general policies, procedures, and standards relating to
teacher education. The Council is coordinated through the
<<back
(Advanced preparation) The
conceptual framework is not consistent or shared across all programs.
ACTION:
We have
reviewed and expanded our conceptual framework particularly as it relates to
advanced programs. A key aspect of the revised advanced program framework is
that it is centered on the six (6) "themes” mentioned earlier. The themes are woven throughout the program
design, coursework, and assessments. The
themes represent the essential areas of expertise or competence which
accomplished educators should possess.
They were identified by faculty to have the most relevance and
applicability to an advanced program such as URI's,
which intends to develop accomplished practitioners by extending and elevating
the proficiencies acquired through initial teacher training. The graduate team wrote the first draft,
followed by a review by the assessment committee. The draft then went to the individual program
faculty who approved. Upon review it was
voted on by the
These themes
primarily emerged from a thorough review of the current professional literature
related to effective teacher education in contemporary
1.
Develop deeper understanding of content (depth
and breadth)
3.
Actively
participate in a variety of diverse learning communities with commitment to all
students
4.
Develop
scholarly research skills and contribute to new knowledge through scholarly
research and interpretation
5.
Engage
in professional development
The unit does not have sufficient administrative and support staff to
ensure the effective and efficient operation of programs for the preparation of
educators.
ACTION:
We have completed a strategic planning
process and outlined our strengths and our needs based on internal and external
reviews. We have hired Ron DiOrio, who currently
serves as the Director of the Office of Teacher Education
and as the NCATE Coordinator. Additional areas of need include assessment
coordination and data collection, administrative support for the Director, and
support for outreach activities.
The unit lacks adequate media and curriculum resources, including
space to house these resources, for the number of candidates in the programs.
ACTION:
The Provost has reviewed this issue and
suggests follow-up on past discussions with the
Christopher W. Wessells, Interim Vice Provost
for Information Services, Interim Dean University Library relative to the housing and maintenance of
the collection and the building of a reasonable/practical long-term budget.
His proposal to the Provost includes:
$130,000 for
an
Beyer, L. E., Feinburg, W. F., Pagano, J. A.,
& Whitson, A. J. (1989). Preparing teachers as professionals: The role of educational studies
and other liberal disciplines.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione,
J. C. (1983). Learning,
remembering and understanding. In P. H. Mussen
(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (3rd
ed.).
Burnaford, G.,Fischer,
J., Hobson, D. Eds.
(2001) Teachers doing research: The power of
action through inquiry. (2nd
ed.).
Bybee, R.W.
(1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to
practices.
Clark, A., Erikson,
G. (Eds.). (2003). Teacher inquiry:
Living the research in everyday practice.
Claugbaugh, G. K. & Rozycki, E. G. (1990). Understanding
schools: The foundations of education.
Cochran, K.F., DeRuiter, J.A., & King, R.A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowledge: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263-272.
Cohen,
D. K., McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. (Eds.) (1993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for
policy and practice.
Crowther, F., Kaagen, S. S.,
Darling
Hammond, L. (1998).
Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hypotheses from a national commission
report. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 5-15.
Darling-Hammond,
L. (1999). Educating teachers for the next century: Rethinking practice and
policy. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers.
Ebmeier, H. (2003). How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commitment: An investigation of a path model. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(2), 110-141.
Fenstermacher, G. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three
aspects. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching
(3rd ed.).
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimeone,
L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K, S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national
sample of teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Garet, M., Birman, B., Porter, A., Desimone,
L., Herman, R., & Suk Yoon, K. (1999) Designating effective professional
development: Lessons from the Eisenhower program.
Giarelli, J.M. (1991). Philosophy,
education and the public practice. In D.P. Ericson
(Ed.), Philosophy of education, 1990:
Proceedings of the 46th annual meeting of the Philosophy of
Education Society.
Haberman, M. (1996). Selecting and preparing culturally
competent teachers for urban schools. In J. Sikula & T. Buttery &
Henson,
K.T. (1996). Teachers as researchers. In J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, &
The Holmes
Group. (1986, April). Tomorrow’s teachers.
Institute for Educational
Leadership. (2001). Leadership for
student learning: Redefining the teacher as leader.
Lederman, N. et al. (1993, April). Becoming a teacher: Balancing
conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association:
Leinhardt, G. (1988). Situated
knowledge and expertise in teaching.
In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’
professional learning.
Livingston,
C., & Borko, H. (1989). Expert/novice differences in teaching: A
cognitive analysis and implications for teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education, 40 (4), 36-42.
McAninch, S. A., & McAninch, A. R. (1996). The social
foundations of education: Retrospect and prospect. In F. B. May (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the
preparation of teachers.
McKerrow, K., Dunn,
R., & Killian, J. (2003).
Beyond the turf wars: Collaboration in preparing school leaders. Education Leadership Review, 4(1), 1-10.
Proposal to Establish the
Reynolds, M.C. (Ed.). (1989). Knowledge base for
the beginning teacher.
Schon, D. A. (1983).
The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. NewYork:Basic Books.
Shulman, L. S.
(1987).
Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Smylie, M. A, Bay, M., and Tozer, S. E.
(1999). Preparing teachers as agents of change. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers.
Spillane, J., Hallet, D., & Diamond, J. (2003). Forms of capital and the construction of
leadership: Instructional leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 76(1), 1-17.
Tozer, S. E. (1993). Toward a new consensus
among social foundations educators: Draft position paper of the American
Educational Studies Association Committee on Academic Standards and
Accreditation, Educational Foundations,
7(4), 5-22.
York-Barr,
J. & Duke, K. (2004).
What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two
decades of scholarship. Review
of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-316.