Conceptual Framework - University of Idaho

Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

Conceptual Framework

Vision of the State Board/Board of Regents

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

University of Ida
ho Vision

We will be a leader among land
-
grant and flagship institutions

in the 21
st

century

by
promoting an entrepreneurial spirit; embracing the contributions of multiple cultures,
identities, and perspectives; and bringing together the talents and enthu
siasm of faculty,
staff and students. We will be widely recognized as a creative university that is both
environmentally and fiscally sustainable and is an engaged partner in addressing the
changing needs of our stakeholders in Idaho, the nation and the w
orld.

University of Idaho Mission

The University of Idaho will formulate its academic plan and generate programs with
primary emphasis on agriculture, natural resources, metallurgy,

engineering, architecture,
law, foreign languages, teacher preparation and

international programs related to the
foregoing.

The University of Idaho will give continuing emphasis in the areas of business,
education liberal arts and physical, life, and social sciences, which also provide the core
curriculum or general education p
ortion of the curriculum.


College of Education Vision

The College of Education envisions being a leading, diverse, nationally recognized
educational community.

Our caring faculty members and innovative curriculum are:



Preparing professionals through inte
grated programs grounded in research



Generating and evaluating knowledge through disciplinary and interdisciplinary
scholarship



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

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


College of Education Mission

The College of Education enriches lives by advancing excellence in research and practice in
education, leadership, and applied human

arts and sciences (adopted January 27, 2005).






Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

Conceptual Framework

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


C
ultural Proficiency;

A
ssessment, Teaching, and Lear
ning;

R
eflective Scholarship and Practice; and,

E
ngag
ement

in Community Building and Partnerships.



Introduction

The University
Of Idaho College Of

Education’s conceptual framework is part of our shared
vision for preparing educators to effectively wor
k in P
-
12 schools

as well as other
professionals working toward healthy, active living
. It provides direction for programs,
courses, teaching, candidate performance, scholarship, service, and accountability.


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


With deliberation, we have chosen the acronym
CARE

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


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


Alignment with University of Idaho Vision and Professional and State Standards


Our conceptual framework is aligned with the University of Idaho Strategic Action

Plan, the
Idaho State Department of Education’s Ten Core Standards for Teacher Preparation
Programs (2007) (See Appendix I), and with the Four Domains of Charlotte Danielson’s,
Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching

(2007) (See Appendix II).


T
he Idaho State Standards were developed by an eclectic group representing teachers,
parents, administrators, business people, and state certification personnel, and are based
on NCATE Standards. In addition, the Danielson domains were selected by the State

Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

Superintendent for Public Instruction as a model for evaluating inservice teachers. As a
result, the conceptual framework uses the Danielson domains (Planning and Preparation,
Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities) for the

evaluation
of candidate proficiencies and expectations of candidate performance, and these, in turn,
flow from the conceptual framework’s purpose and goals. See Table 1 for alignment with
our conceptual framework, University of Idaho (UI) Outcomes, Idaho
Teacher Education
Core Standards, and Danielson Domains.



Table 1. Alignment of Source Standards with the

Conceptual Framework


Conceptual
Framework

Goals

UI Student
Outcomes

Idaho Core Standards for
Teacher Preparation

Danielson Domains
for Professio
nal
Practice

Cultural
Proficiency

Practice citizenship

Idaho Core Standards 1
through 10

Domains 1 through
4

Assessment,
Teaching &
Learning

Learn and integrate

Think and create

Communicate

Idaho Core Standards 1
through 8

Domains 1 through
4

Reflectiv
e
Practice

Clarify purpose and
perspective

Idaho Core Standards 8 & 9

Domains 1, 3 and 4

Engagement

in Community
Building &
Partnerships

Practice citizenship

Idaho Core Standard 10

Domains 1 and 4


Philosophy, Knowledge Base and Professionally Sound Comm
itments
and Dispositions:

C
ARE

Cultural Proficiency

Philosophy:


We believe that diversity enriches the learning environment and that all
individuals have worth and should be treated with dignity and respect.


We welcome a
variety of cultural, economic, an
d experiential backgrounds including, but not limited to,
variation with respect to language, race, culture, religious belief, gender, sexual orientation,
age, ability, veteran status, and geographical location (Tomlinson, 2003).

A cultural
proficiency ap
proach best informs our preparation of educators in the area of diversity; it
does not simply prize the individual, but focuses on the culture of an organization.


Cultural proficiency is reflected in the way an organization treats its employees, its
cons
tituents, and its community. Administrators, teachers, staff, parents, students, and the
community welcome and create opportunities to better understand who they are as
individuals while learning how to interact positively with people who differ from
Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

thems
elves.
In summary, cultural proficiency is the policies and practices of the
organization, or the values and behaviors of an individual, which enable that agency
or person to interact effectively in a culturally diverse environment
(Lindsey, Roberts
& Terr
ell, 2003).


Professional Commitments and Dispositions:

We endeavor to promote the development
of educators

and other professionals

who can be secure in their identities, acknowledge
their predispositions, biases, and limitations, and actively and critical
ly engage in culturally
proficient leadership and teaching.


University of Idaho educators embrace a cultural proficiency approach, or an inside
-
out
approach, to developing harmony and unity through diversity. This approach thinks about
those who are ins
iders in the organization, and encourages reflection on self
-
understandings and values. It relieves those identified as outsiders
—
members of excluded
or marginalized groups
—
from the responsibility of doing all the adapting. This approach
acknowledges and

respects the current values and feelings of people, and encourages
change without threatening feelings of worth.


Culturally proficient leaders and teachers begin with accepting and valuing each student
and acknowledging what each student brings to the c
ommunity (Zaretsky, 2004).

They
nurture development, individual ability, and talent while creating an equitable classroom
environment. Culturally proficient leaders confidently deliver programs and services,
knowing that their community of learners genuin
ely value diversity (Portin, 2004).

Teachers, administrators, school counselors, support staff, and related professionals show
respect to one another and to collective efforts in order to educate every student. When all
participants are deeply involved in
the developmental process, there is broader
-
based
ownership, making commitment to change more likely

(Roach, 1995).


As a result, in a culturally proficient organization, the culture of the organization promotes
inclusiveness and institutionalizes processe
s for learning about differences and for
responding appropriately to those differences (Gartner, & Kerzner Lipsky, 1998; Villa &
Thousand, 2003; Sapon
-
Shevin, 2003). In an organization, it is the organizational
policies

and
practices
that reflect a positiv
e diverse environment
.
In an individual, it is one’s
values
and
behaviors

that enable effective and helpful interaction in a diverse environment
(Lindsey, Roberts & CambellJones, 2005).


Relationship to Idaho State Core Teacher Standards & Danielson Frame
work

Cultural Proficiency is embedded in, and related to, each of the core standards for teacher
preparation programs, and, as a result, all of Danielson’s four domains. Educators and
leaders who meet all ten standards and all four domains are most likely

well aligned with
the philosophy, professional commitments, and dispositions associated with cultural
proficient teaching and leading.


Standard 1: Knowledge of Subject Matter


Standard 2: Knowledge of Human Development and Learning


Standard 3: Modifyi
ng Instruction for Individual Needs


Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

Standard 4: Multiple Instructional Strategies


Standard 5: Classroom Motivation and Management Skills


Standard 6: Communication Skills


Standard 7: Instructional Planning Skills


Standard 8: Assessment of Student Learn
ing


Standard 9: Professional Commitment and Responsibility


Standard 10: Partnerships



Danielson Framework
–

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

Framework
Component

Description of
Teacher Performance

Domain 1

Planning and Preparation

1a

Demonstrates knowledge of content and pedagogy

1b

Demonstrates knowledge of students

1c

Sets instructional outcomes

1d

Demonstrates knowledge of resources

1e

Designs coherent instruction

1f

De
signs student assessments

Domain 2

The Classroom Environment

2a

Creates an environment of respect and rapport

2b

Establishes a culture for learning

2c

Manages classroom procedures

2d

Manages student behavior

2e

Organizes physical space

Domain 3

Inst
ruction

3a

Communicates with students

3b

Uses questioning and discussion techniques

3c

Engages students in learning

3d

Uses assessment in instruction

3e

Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness

Domain 4

Professional Responsibilities

4a

Reflects o
n teaching

4b

Maintains accurate records

4c

Communicates with families

4d

Participates in a professional community

4e

Grows and develops professionally

4f

Shows professionalism


References

Cross, T. L., Bazron, B. J., Dennis, K. W. & Isaacs, M. R. (1
989). Towards A Culturally
Competent System Of Care: Volume 1
-

A Monograph on Effective Services for
Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

Minority Children Who Are Severely Emotionally Disturbed. Washington: CASSP
Technical Assistance Center Georgetown University Child Development Center.

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

Gartner, A. & Kerzner Lipsky, D. (1998). Inclusive Education
–

Mainstreaming all of
America’s children. Social Policy, 28, (N
o. 3), 73
-
76.

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

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments 1997, 2002. In. Retrieved April
17, 2005, from http://w
ww.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/policy.html):
President's Commissions in Special Education. 2002.

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

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

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

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

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

Portin, B. (2004). The Roles That Principals Play.
Educational Leadership
,
61
(7), 1
4
-
18.

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

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

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

Sergiovanni, T. (2004). Building a Community of Hope
–

At the heart of each school, a
realistic optimism must prevail. Educational Leadership:

journal of the Department
of Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.E.A., 61 (No. 8), 33
-
39.

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

Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Deciding to

Teach Them All. Educational Leadership, 61 (No. 2), 6
-
11.

Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

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

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

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

Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

C
A
RE


Assessment, Teaching, and Learning

Philosophy:


We believe

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




Professional Commitments and Dispositions:

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


Assessment:


Assessment is generally viewed as an educator's professional judgment of a student’s
academic achievement in relation to the form and content of a course and

its intended
outcomes. Rather than considering assessment in isolation, educators may be better
served to think of assessment, evaluation, and reporting together as parts of a cycle that
provide information about individual students, the teacher, the uni
t of study, and the
learning environment. It is probably wise to base assessment, evaluation, and reporting
practices on sound educational principles that reflect and dignify the student’s academic
achievement (Gathercoal, 1995).


University of Idaho educ
ators and leaders use assessment to direct student learning, use
valid tools to measure student achievement, and evaluate their own instructional
effectiveness consistent with state standards, course objectives, and exemplary models of
teaching (Darling
-
Ha
mmond, 1995; Danielson, 2009).
By intentionally examining and
challenging prior beliefs and conceptions about assessment, educators extend their
understanding and use of multiple forms of assessment (Goc Karp & Woods, 2008).

They
anticipate and are respo
nsive to individual needs, pluralistic perspectives, and
developmentally appropriate instruction (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Assessment
Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

positively impacts teaching and curriculum through its alignment to standards and the
auditing of student performance (E
nglish, 1992), thereby creating data from multiple
sources, students, teachers anecdotal records, teacher
-
made tests, and normative tests
(Hoy & Hoy, 2003).


Authentic Assessment and Web
-
based Folio Systems:

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


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


Teaching:

University of Idaho educators and leaders

continually engage in reflection and professional
development, and demonstrate a willingness to collaborate with others to promote student
learning (Danielson, 2000, 2007, 2009; Sato, Ker
n, McDonald & Rogers, 2010). They
embrace doctrines of service, ethical behavior, citizenship, and community fellowship
(Gage, 1978; Glickman, 2010).

Professional educators motivate and support learners
(Hunter, 1982; Joyce & Weil, 2000), and develop, im
plement, and evaluate learning
environments conducive to cognitive, affective and psychomotor development (Bloom,
1956). Moreover, Idaho educators envision good teaching as a comprehensive repertoire
of learner
-
centered teaching strategies (Marzano, 1998;

Caine, 1991).


Learning:

University of Idaho educators and leaders understand that learning is the end product of
education (Marzano, Brandt, Hughes, Jones, Presseisen, Rankin & Suhor , 1998; Lambert,
1998). As such they understand how and when to empl
oy a variety of instructional
strategies and customize curricula to elicit optimal engagement for all students, including
multicultural perspectives and special considerations (Kagan, 1992; Smoker, 2006; Mellard
& Johnson, 2008).

They embrace tenets of be
st practice informed by research known to
foster student success (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000).


Relationship to Idaho State Core Teacher Standards

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

Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010


Standard 1: Knowledge of Subject Matter

Standard 2: Knowledge of Human Development and Learning


Standard

3: Modifying Instruction for Individual Needs

Standard 4: Multiple Instructional Strategies


Standard 5: Classroom Motivation and Management Skills


Standard 6: Communication Skills

Standard 7: Instructional Planning Skills


Standard 8: Assessment of Stud
ent Learning



Danielson Framework
–

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

Framework
Component

Description of Teacher Performance

Domain 1

Planning and Preparation

1a

Demons
trates knowledge of content and pedagogy

1b

Demonstrates knowledge of students

1c

Sets instructional outcomes

1d

Demonstrates knowledge of resources

1e

Designs coherent instruction

1f

Designs student assessments

Domain 2

Classroom Environment

2a

Cre
ates an environment of respect and rapport

2b

Establishes a culture for learning

2c

Manages classroom procedures

2d

Manages student behavior

2e

Organizes physical space

Domain 3

Instruction

3a

Communicates with students

3b

Uses questioning and discu
ssion techniques

3c

Engages students in learning

3d

Uses assessment in instruction

3e

Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness

Domain 4

Professional Responsibilities

4a

Reflects on teaching

4b

Maintains accurate records

4c

Communicates with famil
ies


References

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

Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

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

Danielson, C. (2007).
Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching, 2
nd

Ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Danielson, C. (2009).
Talk About Teaching! Leading Professional Conversations.

Thousand
Oaks, CA: Co
rwin Press.

Danielson, C. (2000).
Teacher Evaluation To Enhance Professional Practice.

Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.

Darling
-
Hammond, L., Ancess, J. & Falk, B. (1995).
Authentic Assessment in Action, Studies of
Schools and Students at Work.

New Yor
k: Teachers College, Columbia University.

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

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

Gathercoal,
P., Love, D., & McKean, G. (2003). ProfPort webfolio system: Implementation,
curriculum and assessment. Paper presented at the 2003 Educause Annual Conference:
Balancing Opportunities, Expectations, and Resources
, in Anaheim, California, USA.
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EDU0329.pdf

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

Glickman, C.D., Gordon, S.P. & Ross
-
Gordon, J.M. (2010
).

SuperVision and Instructional
Leadership, A Developmental Approach
. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Goc Karp, G., & Woods, M.L. (2008). PTs Perceptions about Assessment and its
Implementation.
Journal of

Teaching in Physical Education,
27(3), 327
-
346.

Hoy, A. W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

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

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

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

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

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

Orlich, D., Harder, R., Callahan, R., Trevisan, M.S. & Brown, A. H. (2004).
Teach
ing Strategies,
A Guide to Effective Instruction.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

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

(1).


Sc
hmoker, M. (2006).
Results Now, How We Can Achieve Unprecedented Improvements in
Teaching and Learning.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

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

NY: Longman.

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

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

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

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

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

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

Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

CA
R
E

Reflective Scholarship & Practice

Philosophy:


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


Professional Commitments and Dispositions:

University of Idaho educators and leaders
are reflective, build knowledge, and develop schemata complementary
with good
educational practice.

A coherent starting point for reflective practice begins with valuing
and acknowledging personal experiences and a unique understanding of the world; this
does much to motivate reflective practitioners to immerse themselves
as reflective
educators in a way that begs the manufacture of personal meaning.

Reflective practitioners
seek out opportunities to engage in educational activities where they gain new knowledge
and experience This generates new ideas, beliefs, attitudes an
d values that are used to
make predictions and imagine the world in new ways.

Nolan and Huber (1989) reviewed
the literature of instructional supervision as it relates to reflection. They found that by: “1)
engaging the teacher in the process of reflective

behavior while 2) fostering critical inquiry
into the process of teaching and learning, thereby 3) increasing the teachers’
understanding of teacher practice and 4) broadening and deepening the repertoire of
images and metaphors, the teacher can call (be
called upon?) on to deal with problems”
(pg. 129). Schubert (1991), individually and together with Ayers (1992), has written at
length about the value of reflective narrative for understanding practice and effecting
changes in the curriculum.


The Reflect
ive Scholar Educator/Practitioner

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


Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

1.

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

2.

Reflective teachers use standard questions when structuring experiences.

3.

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

4.

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


University of Idaho educators and leaders engage in a variety of activities, including self
-
evaluative strategies meant to provide a richer understanding of the experience and
facilitate further learning and inquiry.

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


Relationship to Idaho State Teacher Standards

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


Standard 8: Assessment of Student Learning


Standard 9: Professional Commitment and Responsibility



Danielson Framework
–

Candidate proficiencies and expectations of candidate
performance


Framework

Component

Description of Teacher Performance

Domain 1

Planning and Preparation

1b

Demonstrates knowledge of students

1f

Designs student assessments

Domain 3

Instruction

3d

Uses assessment in instruction

3e

Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness

Domain 4

Professional Responsibilities

4a

Reflects on teaching

4b

Maintains accurate records

4c

Communicates with families

4d

Participates in a professional community

4e

Grows and develops professionally

Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010


References


Ayers, W., Hunt, J.A. & Quinn,

T. (1992).
Teaching for Social Justice. A Democracy and
Education Reader
, New Press: New York, NY.

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

Danielson, C. (2007).
Enhancing Professional Practice:
A Framework for Teaching, 2
nd

Ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

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


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


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


Korthagen, F. A., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Characteristics of reflective teachers. In F. A.
Korthagen (Ed.),
Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic education

(pp. 131
-
148). Mahwah
, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


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

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

Reagan, T. G., Case, C. W., & Brubacher, J. W. (2000).
Becoming a reflective educator:

How to
build a culture of inquiry

in the schools
(2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.


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


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


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

Corwin.


Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

CAR
E

Engagement

in Community Building & Partnerships

Philosophy:


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


Education is a multi
-
faceted process calling on all social constituents to help shape
r
esponsible, productive citizens. Teachers and school and district administrators partner
with parents and community leaders to provide relevant learning experiences.

A school
-
community bridge allows for continuous interaction between educators and constit
uents
to provide a rigorous learning environment that will help learners thrive as productive
members of a global society.


In Summary, for centuries, the education of children and youth has been the most
important responsibility of society. Communities ca
nnot rely only on schools and
educators to provide quality instruction to students. It takes everyone within the
community of learners working together on educational issues to provide a viable
learning environment so all students can learn to be productiv
e community
members. As the African proverb reminds us, “It takes a village to raise a child.”


Professional Commitments and Dispositions:

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


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

1
2
-
10
-
2010

impact on service
-
learners. Anderson (1998) also defines service
-
learning as both a
philosophy of education and an instructional method.


Service
-
Learning:

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


The U.S. Department of Education has emphasized the importance of cooperative effects
between scho
ols and community organizations. Providing comprehensive academic, social,
and health services for students, family members, and community members will result in
improved educational outcomes for children. Schools do not operate in total isolation from
the

communities in which they are located. Community challenges such as poverty,
violence, poor physical health, and family instability are also education issues. When
schools and community partners collaborate to address these issues and align their
resource
s to achieve common results, children are more likely to succeed academically,
socially, and emotionally (Epstein, 2001; Henderson & Mapp, 2002).


Education must operate at the local level
—
it must be designed for and owned by local
communities if it is t
o provide a meaningful learning experience for all students. The school
must be part of a larger community responsible for ensuring that appropriate
opportunities are provided at all stages of life. On the other hand, communities have their
own combination
s of individuals with special abilities, interests, and resources. Careful
articulation of curriculum and in
-
school learning activity with resources outside of school
will provide a rich experience for both students and adults (Eckert, Goldman, & Wenger,
2
009).


Relationship to Idaho State Teacher Standards

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


Standard10: Partnerships



Danielson Framework
–

Candidate proficiencies and expectations of candidate
performance


Framework
Componen
t

Description of Teacher Performance

Domain 1

Planning and Preparation

1d

Demonstrates knowledge of resources

Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

Domain 4

Professional Responsibilities

4 c

Communicates with families

4d

Participates in a professional community

4f

Shows professionalism


References

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


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


Eckert
, P., Goldman, S., & Wenger, E. (2009). The school as a community of engaged
learners. Retrieved on April 16, 2010 from
http://www.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/SasCEL.pdf


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


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

Boulder, CO:
Westview Publishing.


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


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


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


Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

Assessment Plan


Development and Description of the Assessment Plan


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


1.

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

2.

Based on input concerning elements of the system from faculty, prof
essional
community members, and advisory professionals

3.

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

4.

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

5.

Systematic a
nd flexible to allow examination of unique program goals;

6.

Focused for program development and improvement.


The plan involves important points in each candidate’s program and includes assessments,
timelines, plans for creation of future instruments, integr
ation of technology such as
TaskStream

System, and reporting of student academic and performance achievement
regarding standards and dispositions. In addition, it identifies six main transition points or
benchmarks at the program level:


1.

Admissions

2.

Complet
ion of Course Work

3.

Field Experience

4.

Teaching Credential

5.

Program Exit

6.

Employment


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




The University of Idaho’s administrative computing system



The University of Idaho Assessment

and External Program Review
system,



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



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


Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

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


Aspects Addressing Program Operations


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


•

Quality of instruction

•

Effect
iveness of field supervision

•

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

•

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

•

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


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


The system serves four functions:


1.

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

2.

To determine the quality of candidates th
roughout their programs in terms
of expected knowledge, performance and dispositions inherent in the
conceptual framework

3.

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

4.

To continually improve the qual
ity of our programs and the unit’s
performance.


Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

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


Assessment System Data C
ollection Activities and Instruments


ADMISSIONS


Assessment Activity

Assessment
Evidence

Schedule

Instrument(s)

GPA & required course
verification

Transcripts,

Admissions
Checklist,

Database

By Semester

Transcripts, Admissions
Checklist

(Advanced Pro
grams)
Degree verification
(BA/BS or MA/MS)

Transcripts,
Admissions
Checklist,

Database

By Semester

Transcripts, Admissions
Checklist





Professional
Experience

Initial interview

By Semester

Admissions Checklist,


Initial Advisement
interview, Personal
S
tatement Form or Letter
of Interest

Professional
Recommendations

Letters and
recommendations in
prospect’s admission
file, Admissions
Checklist, Database

By Semester

Admissions Checklist
,

Professional Letter of
Recommendation form

Background Check
(crede
ntial programs)

Background Check
verification

By Semester

Finger Print Analysis by
the State

Personal Interview (if
required)

Interview forms and
rubric, Admissions
Checklist

By Semester

COE initial and secondary
interview form

Writing Sample

Writing S
ample
(Advanced
Programs) Letter of
Interest (Initial
Teacher
Preparation)

By Semester


Overall Rating Form
rubric


Exceptions to
Admission Criteria

Petition

By Semester



Petition’s Committee
Assessment Form

Final Admissions
Decision

Admission Checklis
t
Score and Faculty
By Semester



COE Admissions to
Teacher Education
Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

Approval Form

Evaluation Summary

Program Faculty
Approval Form


COMPLETION OF COURSE

WORK


Assessment Activity

Assessment Evidence

Schedule

Instrument(s)

Successful completion of
cou
rse work with a
minimum 3.0 GPA
(Advanced Programs)
and 2.75 Overall GPA
(Initial Teacher
Preparation)

Transcript

By
Semester

Transcript

Demonstration of
content and pedagogical
knowledge, skills and
dispositions through
assessment of program
goals and CA
RE
elements

Candidate Professional
folio assessment
signature assignment

scores,

Academic Exits

By
Semester

Program Advising form,

Professional folio course
signature assignment
assessments,

Initial Teacher
Preparation academic
exit protocol

Subject Mat
ter
Competence (Initial
Teacher Preparation)

PRAXIS II,

Verification of Subject
Matter Competency

By
Semester

PRAXIS II,

Subject Matter
Competency verification

Demonstration of
Readiness for Early
Student Teaching
Experiences (Initial
Teacher Prepar
ation)

Passage of Elementary
and Secondary
Methods Courses and
Practicum (Initial
Teacher Preparation)

By
Semester

Professional folio course
and practicum signature
assignment assessments

Demonstration of
Readiness for Field
Study or Internship

Passage
of Elementary
and Secondary
Methods Courses and
Practicum (Initial
Teacher Preparation)

By
Semester

Professional folio course
and practicum signature
assignment assessments


FIELD EXPERIENCES


Assessment Activity

Assessment Evidence

Schedule

Instrument(s
)

Location approved by
Signed Field Study
By
Field Study Approval
Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

the Director for Field
Placements

Approval Form

Semester
and
Annually

form

Completion of Early
Field Experiences

Student Logs,

University and Site
Supervisor
Observations and
Ratings,

Passage of Elementary
and Secondary
Methods Courses and
Practicum (Initial
Teacher Preparation)

By
Semester

Fieldwork Evaluation
forms,

Professional folio course
and practicum signature
assignment assessments

Completion of Initial
Internship I or Field
Experience I

Student Logs,

University and Site
Supervisor
Observations and
Ratings,

Passage of Elementary
and Secondary
Methods Courses and
Practicum (Initial
Teacher Preparation)

By
Semester

Fieldwork Evaluation
forms,

Professional folio course
and pra
cticum signature
assignment assessments

Completion of
Internship II or Field
Experiences II


Student Logs,

University and Site
Supervisor
Observations and
Ratings,

Passage of Elementary
and Secondary
Methods Courses and
Practicum (Initial
Teacher Prepa
ration)

By
Semester

Fieldwork Evaluation
forms,

Professional folio course
and practicum signature
assignment assessments

Teaching Performance
Assessment (TPA)

Passing score on the
TPA (Initial Teacher
Preparation)

Semester

National Teaching
Performance A
ssessment
for Elementary (Literacy
or Math); Secondary
(Math, Social Science,
Science, English, Music,
PE, Career Technical
Education, or
Agriculture); Special
Education; or Early
Childhood.


Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

PROGRAM EXIT/CREDENT
IAL


Assessment Activity

Assessment Evidenc
e

Schedule

Instrument(s)

Final Evaluation of
Field Experience or
Internship

Final Experience form
sign
-
off by Site Supervisor
and University Supervisor
(Initial Teacher
Preparation )

By
Semester

University and Site
Supervisor Rating forms

Completion o
f Thesis
or Non
-
Thesis Project

Final Presentation,

Completion Form

By
Semester

Final Presentation,
Completion Form

Professional folio
Defense

Professional folio defense
rubric score

By
Semester

Professional folio
Defense rubric

Completion of Final
A
cademic Exit
Interview

Exit Interview Protocols

By
Semester

Exit Interview Protocols
and Response Form

Completion of Exit
Survey

Exit Survey form

By
Semester

Exit Survey Responses

Graduation Check of
all Program
Requirements

Transcript,

Degree Audit

B
y
Semester

Transcript,

Degree Audit

Final Verification for
Eligibility
-
Recommendation for
State Certification

Credential Application
checklist

By
Semester

Credential Application
checklist


EMPLOYMENT


Assessment
Activity

Assessment
Evidence

Schedule

Instrument(s)

Alumni Survey
completion

Survey of Program
Alumni

Bi
-
annually

Alumni Surveys

Employer Survey
completion by
employer

Survey of Employers

Bi
-
Annually

Employer Surveys


Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010

Appendix I:


The Idaho Core Standards for Teacher Preparation Program
s


Standard 1: Knowledge of Subject Matter

-

The teacher understands the central
concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline taught and creates learning
experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students.


Standa
rd 2: Knowledge of Human Development and Learning

-

The teacher
understands how students learn and develop, and provides opportunities that support
their intellectual, social, and personal development.


Standard 3: Modifying Instruction for Individual Need
s

-

The teacher understands how
students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities to
meet students’ diverse needs and experiences.


Standard 4: Multiple Instructional Strategies

-

The teacher understands and uses a
var
iety of instructional strategies to develop student learning.


Standard 5: Classroom Motivation and Management Skills

-

The teacher understands
individual and group motivation and behavior and creates a learning environment that
encourages positive social
interaction, active engagement in learning, and self
-
motivation.


Standard 6: Communication Skills

–

The teacher uses a variety of communication
techniques to foster learning and communication skills.


Standard 7: Instructional Planning Skills

-

The teache
r plans and prepares instruction
based on knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, curriculum goals, and
instructional strategies.


Standard 8: Assessment of Student Learning

-

The teacher understands, uses, and
interprets formal and informal
assessment strategies to evaluate and advance student
performance and to determine teaching effectiveness.


Standard 9: Professional Commitment and Responsibility

-

The teacher is a reflective
practitioner who demonstrates a commitment to professional stan
dards and is
continuously engaged in purposeful mastery of the art and science of teaching.


Standard 10: Partnerships

-

The teacher interacts in a professional, effective manner with
colleagues, parents, and other members of the community to support stude
nts’ learning
and well
-
being.


Conceptual Framework
–

1
2
-
10
-
2010


Appendix II:


Danielson Framework Domains


Framework
Component

Description of Teacher Performance

Domain 1

Planning and Preparation

1a

Demonstrates knowledge of content and pedagogy

1b

Demonstrates knowledge of students

1c

Sets instructional outcomes

1d

Demonstrates knowledge of resources

1e

Designs coherent instruction

1f

Designs student assessments

Domain 2

The Classroom Environment

2a

Creates an environment of respect and rapport

2b

Establishes a culture for lea
rning

2c

Manages classroom procedures

2d

Manages student behavior

2e

Organizes physical space

Domain 3

Instruction

3a

Communicates with students

3b

Uses questioning and discussion techniques

3c

Engages students in learning

3d

Uses assessment in ins
truction

3e

Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness

Domain 4

Professional Responsibilities

4a

Reflects on teaching

4b

Maintains accurate records

4c

Communicates with families

4d

Participates in a professional community

4e

Grows and develops prof
essionally

4f

Shows professionalism