radford university institutional reporteduweb.education.radford.edu/ncate/docs/ncate exhibi… ·...

Radford University Institutional Report

Exhibit 1.3 Conceptual Framework

Fall 2001

AllConceptual FrameworkKnowledge Bases Driving the Work of the Unit

Vision and Mission of the InstitutionAs stated in the Undergraduate Catalog, the mission of the Radford University is as follows:

Radford University serves the Commonwealth of Virginia and the nation through a wide range of academic, cultural, human service and research programs. First and foremost, the university emphasizes teaching and learning and the process of learning in its commitment to the development of mature, responsible and well-educated citizens. RU develops students’ creative and critical thinking skills, teaches students to analyze problems and implement solutions, helps students discover their leadership styles and fosters their growth as leaders. Toward this end, the university is student-focused and promotes a sense of caring and meaningful interaction among all members of the university community. Research is viewed as a vital corollary to the teaching and learning transaction as it sustains and enhances the ability to teach effectively. Radford University believes in the dynamics of change and has a strong commitment to continuous review, evaluation and improvement in the curriculum and all aspects of the university, so as to meet the changing needs of society.

The university mission aligns well with the mission of the unit in that it emphasizes teaching and learning and the knowledge and skills that serve as a foundation for professional educators. In following through on its stated mission, the university provides exceptional support for instruction, instructional technology, and faculty research and collaborative faculty/student research.

Philosophy, Purpose, Goals and Standards of the Professional Education UnitThe College of Education and Human Development is renowned for developing responsive and engaged human service professionals who teach, lead, and serve. The College prepares students as human service professionals in: teaching; counseling; exercise, sport and health education; nutrition and dietetics; and recreation, parks, and tourism. Faculty and staff emphasize holistic, student-centered teaching grounded in the realities of the professions. The college is recognized for outreach and collaboration in the service of healthy individuals and communities. The values and commitments of the college's faculty, staff, and students are reflected in the core themes below that reflect the aspirations of the community and permeate the goals and actions outlined in the College’s strategic plan.

o Balancing mind, body and spirit: Life balance comes through the development of a healthy mind, body and spirit.



Fall 2001

o Collaboration: is sharing the best of ourselves for the benefit of the whole. Our efforts encourage relationship building, celebrations, mutual opportunity for growth, and a “give-and-take” mentality.

o Diversity: Seek out, learn about, celebrate and capitalize upon the diversity of students and clients and members of the college, the university, and our professional communities.

o Outreach: Cultivate local, national, and international relationships which promote individual and community development.

o Students first: Focus on student’s education and learning through a holistic approach aimed at helping them to determine and attain their goals through multiple means.

o Teaching for holistic student development: learning and growth occur through cultivating a balance of knowledge-seeking, inquiry, discovery, engagement, creativity, joy, and dedication.

The work of the college is based upon the social learning theory of Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger in their work centering on “communities of practice” (Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder, 2002; Wenger, 2005), and on Peter Senge’s work on learning organizations (Senge, 1990; Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, & Flowers, 2004).

“Communities of practice are groups of people share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 4). Succinctly put, through social participation, we learn by doing (become competent in our practice); become who we are (develop our identity); experience meaning, individually and collectively, of our life and of the world; and gain a sense of belonging. We belong to several communities of practice at any one time and throughout our lives (Wenger, 2005). This approach places “learning squarely in the processes of co-participation, not in the heads of individuals” (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The theory of situated learning includes the whole person in context as the major player in learning, not just our mental faculties. Organizational development becomes a process of building the capacity of individuals and the capacity of interconnected communities of practice within the organization to enable the organization to be valued, effective, and able to contribute in meaningful ways to the well-being of individuals and communities.

Peter Senge’s work reinforces concepts from the social learning theories of Wenger and Lave in that “all learning is about how we interact in the world and the types of capacities that develop from our interactions” (Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, & Flowers, 2004, p. 11). Senge reminds us that living systems continuously recreate themselves, and that as participants in learning organizations, we need to maintain a sense of presence, of being open “beyond preconceptions



Fall 2001

and historical ways of making sense,” and develop the ability to act in the service of emerging realities. Senge and others (e.g., Covey, 2006) point out how authentic relationships and meaningful engagement are the sine qua non of successful organizations

The Professional Education Unit is administratively placed within the College but includes faculty and programs housed in other colleges as well as representatives from community colleges and P-12 schools. The conceptual framework (CF) for professional education was developed by RU faculty and administrators in the arts, sciences, humanities, health sciences, and education; PK-12 teachers and administrators; and program candidates. The CF was based upon common expectations regarding the knowledge, skills, and dispositions which all candidates would develop and demonstrate upon completing professional programs. The Conceptual Framework has guided professional program development, implementation and assessment; candidate orientation, advising, and evaluation; and faculty recruitment, hiring, and professional development, and scholarly and creative work. The basic tenets of the Conceptual Framework are:

Professional development occurs best within professional learning communities that promote the development and well-being of students, families, candidates, and school and university faculty (Wenger, 1998);

Professional preparation is a career-long process requiring a commitment to life-long learning;

Professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions emerge from reflected-upon experience—situated learning that takes place in an environment that values and pursues inquiry into professional practice and into student learning and development; (Schon, Cuddapah, et al, 2011);

Programs are designed to help candidates integrate knowledge and skills gained from several areas: prior experiences and beliefs; research; expert counsel from practitioners; guidelines from professional organizations; and their own study and reflected-upon experiences (Spaldking, E., Clecka, E. L., Wang, J., and Odell, S. J., 2011);

Expectations for candidates are outlined in key domains of knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to Content, Learners, Best Practice, and Professionalism. These expectations incorporate the INTASC standards, unit standards, state standards, and standards from the professional associations.

Radford University is committed toward preparing skilled, successful school practitioners who remain in careers in education. We believe that programs with courses and field experiences that are integrated and that involve a high level of collaboration among university and school faculty will best prepare practitioners who are successful and thus who stay in the profession (Darling-Hammond, 2006). In 1998, at one of our meetings with principals and teachers, the unit decided to move toward developing “partner schools” based on the success of a partnership initiated by education faculty and the principal and teachers at Auburn Elementary. Partner schools are those schools that express a commitment toward working more closely with the unit in “simultaneous renewal” (Goodlad, 1994), collaborating in improving



Fall 2001

professional preparation, particularly clinical experiences for pre-service teachers, and in promoting professional development for mentor teachers. Partner schools promote “situated learning” (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2005; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002; Cuddapah, J. L. & Clayton, C. D., 2011) in which candidates become part of a community of practice, taking on authentic roles and responsibilities as members of the school staff. Candidates have multiple opportunities to draw upon several sources to develop knowledge and skills for practice, including: examining their prior beliefs and knowledge; studying research and applying what they learn; observing and being mentored by skilled practitioners; and learning to reflect upon their practice as the basis for improving. Because we view professional development as a career-long endeavor, one of the most important outcomes we expect of candidates is their ability to reflect upon their practice and to plan ways to continuously improve their practice.

The growth of the Partner School Initiative paralleled the expansion of “professional learning communities” (Hord, 1997) and RU began to emphasize the concept of placing student learning at the center of the work of university and school faculty and of interns in programs. Candidates in both teacher preparation and in programs preparing other school personnel are engaged in course and field-based assignments appropriate to their profession that impact student learning and well-being. They must plan, implement, assess, and reflect upon results and plan ways to improve student learning or well-being and their professional practice.

The Partner Schools initiative has lead to more university/school collaboration on several levels. School faculty, particularly through program Advisory Boards, have assisted university faculty in improving programs and clinical experiences. Many university/school projects have focused on improving student learning and well-being---for example: improving students’ and teachers’ use of technology for learning and student engagement; integrating physical movement activities to improve student learning and achievement; improving the reading skills of elementary students; providing after school programs for middle school students; providing counseling services for students and their families.

The Partner Schools initiative needs to promote higher levels of collaborative work that focuses on student learning and well-being. This is why we selected Standard III: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice as the standard to move toward target level. It is more important than ever that we “transform teacher education” by putting clinical practice at the center (Darling-Hammond, 2009). The RU Task Force on Improving Field Experiences and Clinical Practices met for a second time the evening of the release of Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning (NCATE, 2010). This was fortuitous in that this plan provides an excellent map for our work going forward. RU recognizes the urgency following through on the goals outlined in this report: “more rigorous accountability for both SCDE’s and schools in designing, implementing, and evaluating professional preparation; strengthening candidate selection and placement in settings “staffed to support teacher learning and student achievement;” redesigning preparation to support the close



Fall 2001

coupling of practice, content, theory, and pedagogy, and legitimizing the role of clinical faculty and revamping reward structures; garnering state support for partnerships; and expanding research on effective professional preparation” (NCATE, 2010).

The Task Force on Improving Field Experiences and Clinical Practice has generated preliminary goals and will be working in the Fall of 2011 to finalize the goals and develop an action plan. Preliminary goals discussed by the Task Force and which will probably undergo modest revisions include:

1. Teach from a development perspective, which addresses the whole child, the whole educator, and whole school communities;

2. Strengthen collaborative relationships with schools that ensure authentic engagement of candidates; make student learning and well-being the center of our work; establish collaborative inquiry models of professional development for candidates and mentors and faculty; and create structures that support simultaneous renewal of schools and preparation programs;

3. Expand efforts to ensure that university and school faculty and candidates model:a. Strengths in working with diverse populations of students and families;b. Evidence-based practices;c. Effective integration of technology;d. Involvement in and commitment to the profession;

4. Create opportunities for integrating preparation across professional programs;5. Provide more opportunities for candidates to engage in field experience and clinical

experiences across their preparation;6. Expand and create a more structured approach for developing core skills such as

creativity, problem-solving, and critical thinking; 7. Promote habits of life-long learning.

(Pianta, Hitz, & West, 2010; Snyder & Lit, 2010; Durlak, Weissbert, Dymnicki & Schellinger, 2011; Skonkoff & Bales, 2011; Greenhill, 2010; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2005)

Candidate ProficienciesThe following statement of the executive summary of the Conceptual Framework, The Professional Educator, outlines the expected knowledge, skills, and dispositions for candidates in teacher preparation programs and in programs preparing other school personnel. These proficiencies are aligned with unit standards, state standards, NCATE standards, and with Model Standards of the CCSSO Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC). The statement was originally developed 1991-1993 through the work of over one hundred university and school faculty and administrators representing all professional education programs at the university; faculty in arts, sciences, humanities, and in health sciences; and candidates in programs. The statement has been regularly reviewed by faculty in



Fall 2001

education and by the Professional Education Committee and has been updated and modified to reflect new knowledge, issues, and trends in professional preparation.

The candidate proficiencies will undergo review as part of the work of the Task Force on Improving Field Experiences and Clinical Practice. As a parallel process, RU has been highly involved in the Southwest Virginia Professional Education Consortium (SWVA PEC), which consists of four institutions, Radford University, Virginia Tech, Roanoke College, and Hollins University, and eleven school divisions, over 100 schools, and over 1800 teachers who have completed the mentorship development program. The Consortium is embarking upon a project to explore using a common assessment of pre-service teachers such as the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) or the C.L.A.S.S. Classroom Assessment Scoring System that would also be aligned with emerging teacher evaluation in the state. Virginia has just approved a “student growth” model for teacher evaluation which all schools are required to implement. Professional development focusing on the assessment and evaluation of pre-service teachers and in-service teachers could become part of the partnership work of universities and schools, and could help promote more engagement in collaborative inquiry.

Each program has identified key theories, knowledge bases, research, and best practices which undergird professional preparation in the particular field or discipline. Faculty members across programs also share common commitments regarding organizational development (addressed above under the mission of the unit) and human development, diversity, and technology as critical features of educator preparation.

Human DevelopmentThe faculty members in programs recognize the critical importance of integrating strong foundations in child and adolescent development into educator preparation programs, and for ensuring that candidates can apply knowledge and theories into practice. For this reason, the faculty recommended a stand-along course on child and adolescent development (it was previously part of a single educational foundations course). Faculty have reiterated this commitment in discussions of the Conceptual Framework and in the Task Force on Improving Field Experiences and Clinical Practice, particularly emphasizing the need to focus on the whole child, the whole educator, and the whole school community in our work. The unit has explored new research and models for Social-Emotional Learning (Goleman, 1998; Lantieri, 2008; Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, & Schellinger, 2011) and how we can ensure students develop the resilience and physical and mental health necessary for academic success and for leading healthy and rewarding lives.



Fall 2001

Faculty conceptualize educator development as a career-long process, understand that novice educators have unique learning needs and that educators’ learning needs change over time (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson & Orphanos, 2009). They are engaged in continued professional development of educators through advanced programs and programs for other school personnel, through grant projects supporting professional development of teachers and administrators, and through the work of the SWVA PEC and RU’s Clinical Institute. As part of this commitment, faculty have initiated projects to support “self-care” for pre-service and in-service educators.

TechnologyThe faculty have integrated the Virginia Technology Standards for Instructional Personnel (Exhibit 1.3) into required courses in each of the programs. In addition, faculty model the use of a variety of instructional technologies and require candidates to demonstrate their use of technology in their roles as teachers and school personnel. The College has established an Educational Innovation Lab which currently houses newer technologies, including assistive technologies for serving students with special learning needs. A new project, the Games Lab (http://gameslab.radford.edu), directed by Dr. Matt Dunleavy, has been engaged in several school based outreach projects on instructional technology, supported with over $2.5 million of grants. The outreach projects emphasize using hand-held devices to engage learners more actively in mastering Standards of Learning which have been identified by teachers as being challenging for many students. The Games Lab develops applications (learning games) that have been accessed over 44,000 times and by individuals from around the world. Game-based learning, mobile applications, and augmented reality are cited in The 2010 Horizon Report: K-12 Edition as “technologies to watch” that are on the second adoption horizon, about two-three years out. The Lab provides further support to teachers by developing and posting training videos on using newer instructional technologies. Dr. Dunleavy was also instrumental in a recent partnership among Radford University, the Virginia State Department of Education, Apple, Inc., and Blue Ridge Public TV in designing and hosting the Virginia iTunes U (http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2009/04/kaine-launches-virginia-on-itu.php;).

DiversityFaculty in the professional education unit recognize our responsibility to ensure that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to “lead, teach, and help” in a pluralistic society (Exhibit 1.3 Culturally Responsive and Responsible Practice). In 1999, the Professional Education Committee requested two faculty members, Dr. Barbara Boyd and Dr. Betty Dore, to develop a concept paper articulating common outcomes for candidates regarding diversity. They drew upon the work, among others, of Josepha Campinah-Bacota (1994, 1998); James

http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2009/04/kaine-launches-virginia-on-itu.php

http://gameslab.radford.edu/



Fall 2001

Banks (1995, 1997); G. Pritchy Smith (1998); Lisa Delpit (1995); Geneva Gay (1993), J. McFadden, M.M. Merryfield, and K.R. Barron (1996); and Ken Zeichner (1993). The concept paper was presented to and accepted by the Professional Education Committee in the Spring of 2000, and distributed to all faculty liaisons and chairs in professional education programs with examples of statements of student performance outcomes. In this model for promoting cultural competence, Boyd and Dore developed two major themes for candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions: (1) identifying cultural influences upon self and others, and (2), teaching and assessing for diverse learning styles and backgrounds. Faculty members have continued to build upon this knowledge base and upon the model of proficiencies. Some of the major changes regarding commitments toward diversity include:

After realizing how difficult it was for candidates to understand their own cultural identity, this was separated out to form three primary strands: applying an understanding one’s own cultural identity and development; applying an understanding cultural factors; and knowledge, skills, and dispositions for culturally responsive practice (Galman, S., Pica-Smith, C., & Rosenberger, C. (2011); Young, 2011);

Several faculty in education and across the university are examining how to integrate themes of social justice into their teaching and inquiry (Chubbuck, 2011);

Coordinating efforts toward preparing candidates to work with students and families from across the diversity spectrum, particularly focusing on the intersection of poverty, race and ethnicity, gender, ability, and social class and how candidates’ knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and perceptions about students and families impact professional practice and student success (Hughes, 2010);

General education and special education programs have revised elementary and secondary programs to include coursework involving both pre-service populations and have implemented co-teaching placements as part of the MERGE grant;

Faculty teaching in general education and special education programs are collaborating on integrating differentiated instruction, response to intervention, positive behavioral interventions and supports, and have been discussing developing a comprehensive approach toward incorporating universal design for learning in programs (National University Design for Learning Task Force, 2011);

More attention is being placed upon better preparing candidates to work with LGBT students and to deal with issues such as homophobia and bullying in the schools (Jones, J. 2010).

The “executive summary” of the Conceptual Framework, The Professional Educator, is cited on the following pages.



Fall 2001

The Professional EducatorA fundamental concept underlying preparation for a profession in PK-12 schools is that it is a career-long process. Thus, the first basic expectation for Radford University professional education candidates is that they demonstrate a commitment to life-long learning. Studies of experts and novices in education suggest that professional knowledge and dispositions emerge from reflected-upon experience: situated learning that takes place within an environment that values and pursues inquiry into professional practice and student development and learning. Thus a second underlying tenet in Radford University’s programs is the emphasis upon professional learning communities that promote the development and well being of PK-12 students and families, professional education candidates, and university and school-based faculty. Programs are also designed to encourage candidates to integrate knowledge gained over time from several areas of study and experience: from candidates’ prior beliefs and understandings, from research in their fields, from the expert counsel of practitioners, from guidelines from professional organizations, and from their own study and experiences as teachers, counselors, administrators, psychologists, social workers, librarians, and other specialists.

Candidates in Radford University’s Professional Education programs are expected to demonstrate knowledge, skill, and commitment in the following areas:Content Research has extended our awareness of the pervasive impact that content knowledge has on professional practice today. Rich content knowledge is essential in promoting PK-12 student learning. Teacher candidates understand the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students. They are able to address the content in ways that motivate and engage students, using multiple modes for representing content and for assessing learning in order to meet the needs of diverse learners. Candidates pursuing advanced degrees master the content and knowledge bases particular to their advanced roles in order to provide effective leadership, support, and services for PK-12 students and teachers.



Fall 2001

Learners. Professional expertise includes the knowledge, skills and dispositions to engage in learner- and family-centered work. Informed decision-making requires a strong understanding of various aspects of human development. Candidates understand how children learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support their intellectual, social, and personal development. They understand how students differ in their approaches to learning and can create instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners. They use an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation. The increasing diversity of students in PK-12 schools requires that professionals have strong foundations in multicultural and global perspectives, in the socio-cultural contexts of human growth and development, in learning styles, in communication and interaction styles, in family systems, and in student exceptionalities. Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and commitment needed to advocate for quality education for all students, and to recognize and eliminate structures, assumptions, and practices that restrict access or perpetuate inequities in education.

Best Practice Best practice requires a commitment to inquiry and reflection, attention to multiple variables impacting student development and learning, and a proactive stance toward schools as learning communities. Candidates apply best practices in order to ensure that all PK-12 children are successful learners. Candidates use knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication strategies to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction among students and PK-12 professionals. Candidates plan instruction and services based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, families, the community, and curriculum goals. They understand and use formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social and physical development of the learner. Candidates in administrative and specialist programs apply best practices in



Fall 2001

providing leadership and services that support effective and caring learning communities. Candidates are able to explain what they believe, know, and do based upon research and best practice. They are able to integrate technology into their practice to promote student learning, to access information, to enhance communication, to manage their roles and responsibilities effectively and to extend their own learning.

Professionalism. Candidates actively seek opportunities to develop professionally and to promote renewal and best practice in the learning community. Candidates reflect systematically upon their practice and continually evaluate the effects of their choices, decisions, and actions on others. Candidates are knowledgeable about and proficient in meeting professional and state standards for practitioners in their field. Candidates foster relationships with school colleagues, families, agencies and the community to support students’ learning and well being. They are able to communicate effectively and sensitively with families about school programs and about the progress of their children, and are successful in engaging families in the education of their children.

Summarized Description of the Unit’s Assessment System

The unit assessment system has three primary components: (1) Candidate Assessment; (2) Program Evaluation (including evaluations of clinical experiences); and (3) Unit Operations and Governance (including evaluations of the performance of faculty and administrators and of advising and student services, and faculty satisfaction surveys). The unit regularly collects and uses assessment data and information regarding each of the three components in the assessment system.Assessing Candidate Performance



Fall 2001

Each preparation program has developed a candidate and program assessment plan and completes a report annually. The candidate assessment plan is outlined in the Candidate Performance Assessment Framework, which identifies the assessments used at each decision point in the program (typically: admission, admission to the capstone internship, and program completion). Teacher preparation programs have developed assessments related to candidates’ content knowledge and professional knowledge and skills, including the ability to plan and the ability to implement plans, candidates’ impact on student learning, and their professional characteristics and dispositions. All programs preparing other school personnel include assessments of candidates’ content knowledge, professional knowledge and skills, impact on student learning, and professional characteristics and dispositions. Assessments and evaluation tools are aligned with national and state standards and include behavioral indicators describing different levels of performance.

Annual Candidate and Program Assessment reports use the national SPA report templates (see Exhibit 1.? Annual Candidate and Program Assessment Reports). Reports covering the data collected the previous academic year are submitted October 15 and are reviewed by the Dean and the Director of College Assessment, and copies are sent to the administrator of the department in which the program is housed (see Exhibit 2.? Review of Annual Candidate and Program Assessment Reports). The reports also are submitted as part of the Radford University Program Review, which requires annual reports (see Exhibit 2.? Radford University Program Review Process). The reports also meet reporting requirements for SACS accreditation.

The College Assessment Office also collects and reports data regarding qualifications of applicants to the program (GPA, scores on exams required for admission and licensure, professional characteristics and dispositions) and the qualifications of candidates admitted to early field experiences and to student teaching. The Assessment Office also compiles data from candidate self-report surveys administered each semester on Assessment Day regarding their preparation for assessing student learning and their impact on student learning; preparation for working with diverse student populations; and preparation for integrating parental involvement in their practice.

Program Evaluation Annual Candidate and Program Assessment reports use the national SPA report templates (see Exhibit 1.3 Candidate and Program Assessment Reports). Reports covering the data collected the previous academic year are submitted October 15 and are reviewed by the Dean and the Director of College Assessment, and copies are sent to the administrator of the department in which the program is housed (see Exhibit 1.3 “Review of Annual Candidate and Program Assessment Reports” ). The reports also are submitted as part of the Radford University Program Review, which requires annual reports In addition to providing all of the components of a program assessment system, RU Program Review includes evaluations based on data such as student enrollment, retention, and graduation; faculty teaching loads; generation of student



Fall 2001

credit hours. The Candidate and Program Assessment reports are also compiled at the university level as evidence for SACS accreditation.

The unit submits certifications and reports to the Virginia Department of Education and the Board of Education regarding how the unit is meeting Biennial Measurable Targets:

80% pass rate for program completers on state licensure exams Candidate performance on Praxis I and VCLA, basic skills exams Structured and integrated field experiences Evidence of opportunities for candidates to participate in diverse school settings Evidence of contributions to preK-12 student achievement Evidence that the education program assesses candidates’ mastery of exit criteria

Evidence of employer job satisfaction with candidates completing the program Partnerships and collaborations based on preK-12 school needs

The Assessment Office collects data from candidate surveys regarding field experiences: opportunities they had during field experiences (e.g., to plan instruction based on the Standards of Learning; to assess student learning; to use technology) and their evaluation of the assistance they received from the university supervisor and from the cooperating professional. Data from the evaluations are compiled and sent to university supervisors. The evaluations of the university supervisors are reported by faculty in their Faculty Annual Reports as evidence of teaching performance. The Associate Dean and the university supervisors monitor the candidates’ evaluation of cooperating teachers and of the field experience and uses the data to ensure quality field experience placements.

Cooperating Professionals are also mailed an evaluation to complete after the field experience has ended. They evaluate the overall quality of the candidate’s performance and the assistance received from the university supervisor and from the Field Experience Office. The College also conducts Employer Surveys and Alumni Surveys every four years (2002, 2006, (2007 was conducted by the university), and 2011).

Assessing Unit Operations and GovernanceAssessment of candidates and of programs is a critical part of assessing unit operations. As mentioned, candidate performance and program assessment reports are reviewed at the unit level and the results are used to guide the unit’s involvement in ensuring quality professional educator preparation.

The Assessment Office assists the Teaching Resources Center and the Center for Academic Advising and Student Success in surveying patrons regarding their use of services and their satisfaction with services. The Personnel Committees in each department implement course evaluations each semester and the results are compiled through the university and disseminated to faculty and to their chairs or directors.



Fall 2001

The university implements a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. Faculty complete a Faculty Annual Report (FAR), describing evidence regarding their teaching, professional development, professional contributions, and service, and discussing how they worked to improve their performance in each of these areas. Personnel Committees and chairs and directors review the FARs and submit letters summarizing their evaluations of faculty members each year to the Dean, who reviews the evaluations and submits a letter to the Provost. Administrative faculty and classified staff also submit summary annual reports and are evaluated each year by their supervisors based on the responsibilities outlined in the position description. The chairs and director and dean submit annual reports and are evaluated by the faculty and by their supervisors each year.

The college and the unit complete other assessments and reports on an as-needed basis to inform decision-making. For example, the college leadership team regularly reviews the profiles of incoming freshmen and information about where applicants go when they do not come to RU as part of annual review and planning; programs recommending changes to admission requirements completed studies of student qualifications and performance to support the change; the Assessment Office conducted studies using Praxis I and VCLA data to provide a model to advisors for predicting potential success on the Virginia Reading Assessment to use in counseling students; admissions data were used to revise the placement process for elementary education candidates. The unit used data from records of faculty teaching loads and credit-hour generation to request that the university not limit FTE data used in RU Annual Program to Fall census date data, but to include fall, spring, and summer, since most graduate program faculty teach year-round.

The Dean has conducted spring open forums with faculty each year to learn about accomplishments, issues faculty face, and aspirations. This was changed to an open forum within the departments and school this past year. Information from the forums is shared with the Leadership Team during planning retreats in the summer. Because of the focus upon organizational development within the college, the Dean has also asked that the Faculty Senate provide the college with Faculty Satisfaction Survey data disaggregated for the college to allow the Leadership Team to compare results for the college with university-wide results.

References

Banks, J. B., & Banks, C.A.M. (Eds.) (2004). Handbook of research on multicultural education. New York: MacMillan.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academies Press.

Campinha-Bacota, J. (1994). The process of cultural competence in health care: A culturally competent model of care (2nd ed.). Wyoming, OH: Transcultural C.A.R.E. Associates.



Fall 2001

Campinha-Bacota, J. (1998). Readings and resources in transcultural health care and mental health. Dayton: Transcultural C.A.R.E. Associates.

Chubbuck, S. M., (2010). Individual and structural orientations in socially just teaching: Conceptualization, implementation, and collaborative effort. Journal of Teacher Education. 61(3), 197-210.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010, July). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Draft for public comment. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Covey, S. M. R. (2008). The speed of trust: The one thing that changes everything. New York, New York: Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Cuddapah, J.L. & Clayton, C. D., (2010). Using Wenger’s communities of practice to explore a new teacher cohort. Journal of Teacher Education. 62(1), 63-75.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 57: 1-15.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (1-2): 35-47.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional Learning in the Learning Professions. Dallas, TX. National Staff Development Council.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press.

Diller, J. & Moule, J. (2005). Cultural competence. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishers.

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D. & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82: 405–432.

Foulks-Boyd, B. & Dore, E. (2000). Cultural competence skills for teachers. Concept paper presented to the Professional Education Committee at Radford University, Spring 2000.



Fall 2001

Galman, S., Pica-Smith, C., Rosenberger, C. (2010). Aggressive and tender navigations: Teacher educators confront whiteness in their practice. Journal of Teacher Education. 61(3), 226-236.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education. 253, 2: 106-116.

Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education. 61(1-2), 143-152.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.

Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Greenhill, V. (2010). 21st Century Knowledge and Skills in Educator Preparation. Paper produced as part of a collaborative project by the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (September, 2010).

Hamre, B., K., Pianta, R.C., Mashburn, A., & Downer, J. (2010). Building a science of classrooms: Application of the CLASS framework in over 4,000 U.S. early childhood and elementary classrooms. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Hughes, J. A. (2010). What teacher preparation programs can do to better prepare teachers to meet the challenges of educating students living in poverty. Action in Teacher Education. 32 (1): 54-64.

Johnson, L., Smith, R., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2010). 2010 Horizon Report: K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Jones, J. (2010). Making safe places unsafe: A discussion of homophobia with teachers. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Crown Publishers.

Lantieri, L. (2008). Building emotional intelligence: Techniques for cultivating inner strength in children. Boulder: Sounds True.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.



Fall 2001

McFadden, J., Merryfield, M.J., & Barron, K.R. (1996). Multicultural & global/international

education: Guidelines for programs in teacher education. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2005). Understanding by design. ASCD.

MET Measuring Effective Teaching. Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the measures of effective teaching project. http://www.metproject.org/downloads/Preliminary_Findings-Research_Paper.pdf

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, D.C. NCATE.

Newman, J. (2006). America’s Teachers (5th edition, chapter on gender). Boston: Pearson, Allyn, and Bacon.

Pianta, R. C., Hitz, R., & West, B. (2010). Increasing the application of developmental sciences knowledge in educator preparation: Policy issues and recommendations. Washington, D.C.: NCATE.

PACT, Performance Assessment for California Teachers. http://www.pacttpa.org/_main/hub.php?pageName=Home

Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for Equity and Justice. (2007). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

Saint-Onge, H. & Wallace, D. (2003). Leveraging communities of practice for strategic advantage. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Pollock, M., Deckman, S., Mira, M., & Shalaby, C. (2010). “But what can I do?”: Three necessary tensions in teaching teachers about race. Journal of Teacher Education. 61(3), 212-224.

Schussler, D. L., Stooksberry, L. M. & Bercaw, L. A. (2010). Understanding teacher candidate dispositions: reflecting to build self-awareness. Journal of Teacher Education. 61(4), 350-263.

Senge, P., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J., Flowers, B. S. (2005). Presence: An exploration of profound change in people, organizations, and society. New York, NY: Random House.

Shonkoff, J. P. & Bales, S. N. (2011). Science does not speak for itself: Translating child development research for the public and its policymakers. Child Development, 82: 17–32.

http://www.pacttpa.org/_main/hub.php?pageName=Home

http://www.metproject.org/downloads/Preliminary_Findings-Research_Paper.pdf



Fall 2001

Smith, G.P. (1998). Common sense about uncommon knowledge: The knowledge bases for diversity. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.

Snyder, J. & Lit, I. (2010). Principles and exemplars for integrating developmental sciences knowledge into educator preparation. Washington, D.C., NCATE.

Spalding, E., Klecka, C., Lin, E., Odell, S.J., & Wang, J. (2010). Social justice and teacher education: A hammer, a bell, and a song. Journal of Teacher Education. 61(3), 191-196.

Tatum, B. D. (1994). Teaching White students about racism: The search for White allies and the restoration of hope. Teachers College Record, 95,4: 462-476.

UDL, National Universal Design for Learning. (2011).UDL and UD Provisions in the Higher Education Opportunity Act (Public Law 110-315) (HEOA). http://www.advocacyinstitute.org/UDL/HEOA.shtml

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2010, March). ESEA Blueprint for reform. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Villegas, A. M. (1991). Culturally responsive pedagogy for the 1990s and beyond. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W.M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Wang, J., Odell, S. J., Klecka, C. L., Spalding, E., and Lin, E. (2010). Understanding teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education. 61(5): 395-402.

Young, E., (2010). Challenges to conceptualizing and actualizing culturally relevant pedagogy: How viable is the theory in classroom practice? Journal of Teacher Education. 61(3), 249-260.

Zeichner, K.M. (1993). Educating teachers for cultural diversity (NCRTL Special Report). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

Zeichner, K. M. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field

experiences in college and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (1-2): 89-99.

http://www.advocacyinstitute.org/UDL/HEOA.shtml

radford university institutional reporteduweb.education.radford.edu/ncate/docs/ncate exhibi… ·...

Documents