Conceptual Framework. Education Department Licensure Programs

Transcription

1 Conceptual Framework Education Department Licensure Programs Augsburg College Mission Statement: Augsburg College intends to develop future leaders of service to the world by providing high quality educational opportunities which are based in the liberal arts and shaped by the faith and values of the Christian Church, by the context of a vital metropolitan setting, and by an intentionally diverse campus community. Augsburg Education Department Mission Statement: The Augsburg College Education Department commits itself to developing future educational leaders and professionals who foster student learning and well-being by being knowledgeable in content, being competent in pedagogy, being ethical in practice, building relationships, embracing diversity, reflecting critically, and collaborating effectively. Program Theme: Teacher as developing professional, from competent classroom decision-maker to educational leader. Teachers as Well-Prepared professionals: The Augsburg Education Department believes that teachers are professionals who possess specialized knowledge, skills, and patterns of belief that allow them to function competently within their realm. Furthermore, the Augsburg Education Department believes that the education in which we engage pre-service teachers has a positive impact on the professionals they become. Specialized knowledge, skills, and patterns of belief can be grouped into the four dimensions of our initial licensure program as follows: What we do Concepts and Strategies of Teaching (Being Competent in Pedagogy; Building Relationships) How to assess and evaluate student ability and performance (MSEP 8: Assessment). How to plan instruction to meet student needs (MSEP 7: Planning Instruction) How to implement instruction to promote student learning (MSEP 4: Instructional Strategies) How to manage children and classroom life effectively (MSEP 5: Learning Environment) How to help students develop emotionally and socially (MSEP 2: Student Learning; MSEP Standard 5: Learning Environment) How to integrate technology and service learning into educational practice

2 Who we teach Knowledge of Children and Youth (Embracing Diversity) How students develop and learn (MSEP 2: Student Learning) Similarities/differences across communities, cultures, learning styles, abilities, special needs, and lifestyles (MSEP 3: Diverse Learners) Current issues affecting children and youth (MSEP 9: Reflection and Professional Development; MSEP 10 Collaboration, Ethics, and Relationships) Where we work Contexts of Schools (Collaborating effectively; Being Knowledgeable in Content) Foundational knowledge of schools and education in the US (MSEP 9: Reflection and Professional Development) Collaboration and teaming skills (MSEP 10: Collaboration, Ethics, and Relationships) Who we are as individuals and teachers Personal Stance and Knowledge base (Reflecting Critically; Being Knowledgeable in Content; Being Ethical in Practice; Developing Future Educational Leaders) What I know and how I learn (MSEP 1: Subject Matter) How I think: Critically, Creatively, Ethically, Reflectively (MSEP Subject Matter; MSEP 9: Reflection and Professional Development) Who I am as a person and how that impacts my teaching (MSEP 9: Reflection and Professional Development) What my role can be as a teacher within and beyond school (MSEP 9: Reflection and Professional Development; MSEP 10 Collaboration, Ethics, and Relationships) What I believe to be true about education and people; personal philosophy of education (MSEP 9: Reflection and Professional Development) What I can do to develop as a professional (MSEP 9: Reflection and Professional Development) How I communicate and understand the communication of others (MSEP 6: Communication: MS 10: Collaboration, Ethics, and Relationships) Augsburg pre-service teachers learn to examine their practice critically, reflecting on both what works and what doesn t to motivate student learning. They learn to understand that gaining and applying knowledge in the service of student learning is a fluid, intellectual task one that leads to professional growth only when there is constant appraisal and interpretation of actions taken along the way. They begin to recognize that acquired knowledge and practice are not static, but rather that true learning requires them to engage in an ongoing intellectually driven process of testing out, stepping back and reflecting on practices. As part of that process, our pre-service teachers learn to recognize what works with a group of students and what doesn t, retaining those strategies and practices that promote learning and rethinking those that don t. Schon (1983) describes this as reflection-inaction. Reflection-in-action allows teachers to adjust and adapt to differences in students by combining knowledge of content, knowledge of students, and

3 knowledge of strategies in such a way as to maximize student learning. The Augsburg Education Department structures experience with reflection-in-action as part of coursework requirements and the student teaching supervision we provide. Teachers, as well-prepared professionals, gain their specialized skills and knowledge about teaching and learning through high-quality, standards-based teacher preparation programs that integrate practical experience with teaching and learning theory, that provide ample opportunity to work with children and youth in numerous teaching situations, and that emphasize the accountability for student achievement that people in our profession accept as part of their role (Darling- Hammond and Sykes, 2003). The Augsburg Education Department believes that teaching, as a profession, plays too large and too important a role in society to be thought of as simply a job that requires high verbal skills, minimal training, and a good attitude. As professionals, teachers surround solid content knowledge with knowledge of children and youth, knowledge of context, knowledge of self, pedagogical resources and abilities, and a strong belief in the power and necessity of education in order to best serve their students. Teachers as Inclusive Practitioners: The Augsburg Education Department believes that teachers are moral stewards in the classroom, acting both as educators and community builders amongst all students. Furthermore, the Augsburg College Education Department believes that teachers have an ethical and moral responsibility to promote learning amongst all students. This implies several things. First, teachers have the responsibility to create welcoming environments for the broad range of students who walk into their classrooms, seeking to build strong relationships and a sense of community with and among students (Banks, et.al., 2001). In some cases this means understanding the diverse cultural backgrounds of the students they teach, and when they don t, understanding it is their responsibility to gain this information and use it to create a welcoming environment conducive to learning. Some refer to this as having an empathic disposition towards diverse populations (McAllister, 2002). Second, teachers have the responsibility of recognizing each student as someone with the potential to learn whom they have the potential to teach (Tomlinson, 2003). In some cases this means understanding and believing that children who learn differently can learn and can learn with them as their teacher. It means having the propensity to reflect on what they know about teaching and learning, how to apply it with children who have special learning needs, and where to get help for these children and themselves when they need it. It means recognizing and honoring the multiple intelligences and learning styles that are present in any classroom setting.

4 Third, teachers have the responsibility to view families and community members as resources in promoting the learning of all students. In some cases this means welcoming them into the classroom and school. In other cases this means meeting families and community members outside school, in homes and/or on neutral ground. In all cases, it means regarding families and community members as valuable sources of support, information and help in the process of promoting learning for all students. Teachers as Leaders: The Augsburg Education Department believes that teachers, by the nature of their position, serve as leaders within the classroom, and with experience, increased confidence, and some training as leaders within the school, the district, and the community. Furthermore, the Augsburg Education Department believes it is important to help pre-service teachers acquire the traits and skills of leadership. As leaders, these teachers ideally possess the following characteristics: Teacher leaders keep student learning at the center of their work. Teacher leaders are advocates for their students and inspire in others a shared vision of student potential. Teacher leaders are role models and mentors for students and colleagues, acting on their behalf as well as enabling them to take appropriate action. Teacher leaders are hard working and committed to their profession, seeing themselves as engaged in a vocation rather than simply a job. Teacher leaders are highly involved in curriculum development and instructional innovation, routinely demonstrating expertise through their teaching. Teacher leaders are collaborators, drawing on the expertise of others and, in turn, making themselves available as resources. Teacher leaders seek challenges. Teacher leaders view themselves as life-long learners, valuing knowledge as an essential tool for thinking critically and participating effectively as world citizens. The Augsburg Education Department also believes that, as leaders, teachers of the early 21 st century need to embrace the role of technology in education, using technology to advance student learning, to enhance their teaching, and to streamline their work. Our teacher education programs must help our pre-service teachers realize that their actions and decisions will help others to take advantage of the technology available to them and their students. It will become their professional responsibility to advocate the use of technology within their schools, using technology competently themselves, and sharing their vision and knowledge with others in order to help schools capitalize on the technology available to them. (Augsburg College Education Department, 2003) It remains our responsibility as teacher educators to provide examples of best practices related to technology in our classrooms both in the teaching we do and in the skills we help our preservice teachers acquire. (Russell, et.al. 2003)

5 Teachers as Lifelong Learner: The Augsburg College Education Department believes that teachers develop their abilities, including their leadership abilities, over time and with experience. An effective pre-service teacher education program must attend to the developmental needs of its students, the majority of whom feel the need for a practical, craft development focus. (MetLife, 1990; Lieberman and Miller, 1984). Our programs acknowledge the importance of meeting students perceived needs by modeling to and with our pre-service teachers a set of practical strategies for planning, instruction, assessment, and classroom management that are conceptually and theoretically consistent with constructivist learning theory. We believe that pre-service teachers make sense of strategies by interacting with them in the college classroom and in their K-12 field experience. A focus on becoming a competent classroom decision maker and leader is appropriate for the majority of our pre-service teachers. However, the Augsburg College Education Department also believes that adults who return to college to acquire their teaching license sometimes have life experience that allows them to incorporate leadership issues and experiences into their initial licensure program. This is especially true for those already holding a baccalaureate degree. For this reason, Augsburg offers an initial licensure option at the masters degree level with a partial focus on examining and developing personal leadership abilities within the context of teaching. Our Master of Arts in Education (MAE) program recognizes that experience in life as well as in teaching enhances the pre-service teacher s sense of personal authority and confidence in their knowledge of the world that can move them more quickly to give leadership beyond the classroom walls as well as within them. The MAE program provides leadership opportunities throughout licensure coursework and a focus on issues of leadership as part of the degree completion coursework. Finally, the Augsburg College Education Department believes that our programs should encourage pre-service teachers to value raising questions as well as finding answers and to incorporate that attitude in lesson design and instruction. This value of raising questions is also encouraged throughout our programs in the critical assessment of the status quo in education and society. With this focus on questions as well as answers we hope to develop beginning teachers who have a repertoire of concrete strategies, experience in analyzing classroom situations and making instructional decisions, and the propensity to ask questions, think critically, and act ethically all very practical concerns of educational leaders and lifelong learners.

6 Key Ideals The Augsburg College Education Department shares the following key ideals and uses them to make decisions about our work with our pre-service teachers. Many of these items were developed as part of earlier self-studies. Most reinforce and/or expand upon our belief statements. All are important to us and merit personal and collective attention as we make decisions about our programs, our courses, and the students we teach. Not all are fully achieved; hence, they represent our ideals. Teachers are moral forces within their schools (Perrone, 1991). The decisions they make and the examples they set impact the lives of children and youth. Teachers must operate within a decision-making framework in which ethical considerations are raised. Our teacher education programs model the inclusion of ethics and the development of a personal ethical base from which to operate as a classroom decision maker. Teacher leaders are first and foremost competent classroom decision makers (Perrone, 1991) who have the right and responsibility to exercise leadership in matters of teaching and learning at the institutional as well as classroom level. Our teacher education programs focus primarily upon developing classroom leadership abilities amongst our pre-service teachers because that is our main charge; however, a secondary focus on developing institutional leadership abilities is also important, especially amongst our graduate population. Teachers who are good classroom decision makers are able to inquire into teaching and learning and think critically about their work (Doyle, 1990, p 6). Our teacher education programs reflect the use of pedagogical strategies that promote critical thinking and reflection-in-action (Schon, 1983). Learning to teach well is a life long developmental process. Pre-service and beginning teachers must have a realistic sense of where they are on this developmental continuum, see themselves as capable learners who will continue to learn and grow even as they teach, and actively pursue opportunities to increase their skills and abilities (Burden, 1990). Our teacher education programs support their development at whatever level they are at. Learning to teach well is an intellectual as well as a technical process (Cochran-Smith, 2003). Good teachers think about and evaluate what they do as well as implement practices. Our teacher education programs support the development of intellect when it causes pre-service teachers to raise questions as well as answer them and to reflect on practice as well as carry it out.

7 Learning to teach well is a matter of the heart as well as the head (Palmer, 2003). Building positive relationships with students is essential to creating an environment conducive to learning. (Nieto, 2003) Our teacher education department models an ethos of caring and flexibility, setting the tone for what we hope our pre-service teachers will do in their own classrooms. In doing so we balance the need for upholding standards and rules with the need to recognize and respond to individuals. Good education is designed to meet the needs of the students involved (McAllister, 2002). Our teacher education programs prepare teachers to be knowledgeable, flexible, resourceful, creative, and sensitive in designing conditions in which diverse populations of students can learn. [O]ne of the classroom teacher s most important jobs is managing the classroom effectively. (Marzano, R. & Marzano, J., 2003, p.6). Good education considers the context of the setting in which students learn. Our teacher education programs help pre-service teachers examine classroom organization and management strategies that are positive and preventive in nature and designed to support student achievement as well as create positive learning environments. Good education is best provided by a capable, diverse cadre of teachers. Our teacher education student population is diverse along a variety of measures, our department welcomes this diversity, and our program focuses on developing the abilities of all our students. Good education is best provided by teachers who are knowledgeable in the liberal arts and globally aware. Our teacher education programs have a solid foundation in the liberal arts and our department has strong relationships with the departments that provide the liberal arts foundation. Also, our programs support the broadening of our pre-service teachers world-views through global education course opportunities and inclusion of global perspectives in campus-based coursework. Children and youth bring a full range of strengths and needs to school to be recognized and served. While our teacher education students must acknowledge that developing academic competency in children and youth is their primary responsibility, they must also understand the impact that social, emotional, and economic strengths and needs have on learning. This implies that our students need to see themselves as collaborators in the process of educating children and youth rather than sole proprietors. Our teacher education programs support this development through the content of our courses and the attitudes of our faculty. Collaborating successfully with colleagues, family and community requires specific group process skills and the opportunities to practice

8 them. Our teacher education programs focus on developing and reinforcing pre-service teachers abilities to work effectively in small work groups, in one-on-one conversations, and in large group settings.

9 Bibliography Augsburg College Education Department. (2003). Teacher educators teach future teachers the art of being a professional. In S. Schmieder (Ed). Dreams and Shadows: Portraits of a Professional (pp.7-9). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg College PT3 Project and JDL Technologies. Banks, James, Peter Cookson, Geneva Gay, Willis D. Hawley, Jacqueline Jordan Irvine, Sonia Nieto, Janet Ward Schofield, Walter G. Stephan. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington, Seattle. Burden, Paul. (1990). Development in teachers. In W.R. Houston (Ed). Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. Association for Teacher Education. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn. (2003). Teacher education s Bermuda Triangle: Dichotomy, mythology, and amnesia. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), Darling-Hammond, Linda and Gary Sykes. (2003, September 17). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the highly qualified teacher challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved October 1, 2003 from. Doyle, Walter. (1990). Themes in teacher education research. In W.R. Houston (Ed). Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. Association for Teacher Education. Lieberman, Ann and Lynn Miller. (1984). Teachers, their world and their work: Implications for school improvement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. and J., Marzano. (2003). The key to classroom management. Educational Leadership, 61(1), McAllister, Gretchen. (2002). The role of empathy in teaching culturally diverse students: A qualitative study of teachers beliefs. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5) Nieto, Sonia. (2003). Challenging current notions of "highly qualified teachers" through work in a teachers' inquiry group. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5)

10 Palmer, Parker. (2003).Teaching with heart and soul: Reflections on spirituality in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,54(5) Perrone, Vito. (1991). A letter to teachers: Reflections on schooling and the art of teaching. Jossey-Bass Publishers. Russell, Michael, Damean Bebell, Laura O Dwyer, & Kathleen O Connor. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for pre-service and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4) Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. NY: Basic Books. Tomlinson, Carol Ann. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2) 6-11.

11 Bibliography The following references reflect a sample of the knowledge base that influences the thinking of our full-time unit faculty. The references are organized under the program dimensions they primarily support. What we do Concepts and Strategies of Teaching Armstrong, T. (2003). The multiple intelligences of reading and writing: Making words come alive. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Carr, Judy F., & Douglas E. Harris. (2001). Succeeding with standards: Linking curriculum, assessment, and action planning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Danielson, Charlotte. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Eisner, E. (2004) Preparing for Today and Tomorrow:...Not a sound basis on which to plan a curriculum, Educational Leadership, 61 (4), Fosnot, Catherine Twomey, and Maarten Dolk. (2001) Constructing number sense, addition, and subtraction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Janney, R. & Snell, M.E. (2000). Behavioral support. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond Discipline: From compliance to community. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lovett, H. (1996). Learning to Listen: Positive approaches and people with difficult behavior. Baltimore: Paul Brookes. Lynch-Brown, C and C.M. Tomlinson. (2002). Essentials of children s literature. 4 th Edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Ma, Liping. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Marlowe, B. & Page, M. (1998). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Marzano, Robert J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, Marzano, Robert J., Jana S. Marzano, and Debra J. Pickering. (2003). Classroom management that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

12 Murphy, K., DePasquale, R., & McNamara, E. (2003). Meaningful connections: Using technology in primary classrooms. Young Children, 58(6), National Council of Teachers of mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school Mathematics.. Reston, VA: NCTM. Routman, Regie. (2000). Conversations: Strategies for teaching, learning, and evaluating. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1999). Because we can change the world: A practical guide to building cooperative, inclusive classroom communities. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Valmont, William. (2003). Technology for literacy teaching and learning. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Weber, Ellen. (1999). Student Assessment that Works. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Wolfe, Patricia. (2001). Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice Alexandria, VA: ASCD Who we teach Knowledge of Children and Youth Biklen, D. (1992). Schooling without labels: Parents, educators and inclusive education. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Danforth, S. & Taff, S.D. (2004). Critical readings in special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Delpit, Lisa. (1995). Other people s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press. Fadiman, Anne. (1997). The spirit catches you and you fall down. New York: The Noonday Press. Garcia, Gilbert G., Ed. (2003). English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy. Newark, DL: IRA. Gardner, Howard. (1993) Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Perennial. Kalyanpur, M. & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education: Building reciprocal family-professional relationships. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.

13 Ladson-Billings, Gloria, (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Landsman, Julie. (1993). Basic needs: A year with street kids in a city school. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions. Orenstein, Peggy. (1994). Schoolgirls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap. New York, NY: Doubleday. Paley, Vivian Gussen. (1979). White teacher. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Silver, Harvey F., Richard W. Strong, & Matthew J. Perini. (2000). So each may learn: Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Tapscott, Don. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Turnbull, A. & Turnbull, R. (2001). Families, professionals and exceptionality: Collaborating for empowerment. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. Where we work Contexts of Schools. Erickson, J.A. and J.B. Anderson, Eds. (1997). Learning with the community: Concepts and models for service-learning in teacher education. Washington, DC: AAHE. Kohn, A. (1999). The schools our children deserve: Moving beyond traditional classrooms and tougher standards. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kozol, Jonathan. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Perennial. Kozol, Jonathan. (1995). Amazing grace. New York: Perennial. Kozol, Jonathan. (2000). Ordinary resurrections. New York: Perennial. Mondale, S. and S.B. Patton, Eds. (2001). School: The story of American public education. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Payne, Ruby. (1998). A framework for understanding poverty. Baytown, TX: RFT Publishing, Co. Skritic, T. M. (1991). Behind special education A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver: Love Publishing.

14 Who we are as individuals and teachers Personal Stance and Knowledge-base American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: AFT. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education 51(3), Darling-Hammond, L. and G. Sykes. (2003, September 17). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the highly qualified teacher challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved 9/16/03 from Education Commission of the States. (2003). Executive summary: Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the research say? A summary of findings. Denver, CO: ECS. National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Reacher Preparation for Reading Instruction. (2003). Prepared to make a difference: Highlight of the report. Newark, DL: IRA. National Commission on Teaching and America s Future. (2003). No dream denied: A pleadge to America s children. Washington, DC: NCTAF. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neito, Sonia (2000). Bringing bilingual education out of the basement, and other imperatives for teacher education. In Lifting every voice: Pedagogy and politics of bilingual education, edited by Zeynep Beykont. Cambrigde, MA: Harvard Educational Review. Nieto, Sonia. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education, 4 th edition. New York: Pearson Education, Inc. A&B.. Paige, Rod. (2003). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretary s second annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Palmer, Parker. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass. Perrone, Vito.(2000). Lessons for new teachers. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

15 Wink, J. (2000) Critical Pedagogy: Notes from the real world. New York, NY: Longman.

16