Conceptual Framework - Augsburg College

shoulderscobblerInternet και Εφαρμογές Web

2 Φεβ 2013 (πριν από 4 χρόνια και 9 μήνες)

166 εμφανίσεις

Conceptual Framework


Education Department Licensure Programs



Augsburg College Mission Statement:


Augsburg College intends to develop
future leaders of service to the world by providing high quality educational
opportunities which are ba
sed in the liberal arts and shaped by the faith and values
of the Christian Church, by the context of a vital metropolitan setting, and by an
intentionally diverse campus community.


Augsburg Education Department Mission Statement:
The Augsburg College
Edu
cation Department commits itself to developing future educational leaders and
professionals who foster student learning and well
-
being by being knowledgeable
in content, being competent in pedagogy, being ethical in practice, building
relationships, embrac
ing diversity, reflecting critically, and collaborating
effectively.


Program Theme:

Teacher as developing professional, from competent classroom
decision
-
maker to educational leader.




Teachers as Well
-
Prepared professionals:

The Augsburg Education
Depar
tment believes that teachers are professionals who possess specialized
knowledge, skills, and patterns of belief that allow them to function competently
within their realm
.
Furthermore, the Augsburg Education Department believes
that the education in whic
h we engage pre
-
service teachers has a positive impact
on the professionals they become.

Specialized knowledge, skills, and patterns of
belief can be grouped into the four dimensions of our initial licensure program as
follows:


What we do


Concepts and S
trategies of Teaching (Being Competent in
Pedagogy; Building Relationships)



How to assess and evaluate student ability and performance (MSEP 8:
Assessment).



How to plan instruction to meet student needs (MSEP 7: Planning
Instruction)



How to implement instr
uction to promote student learning (MSEP 4:
Instructional Strategies)



How to manage children and classroom life effectively (MSEP 5:
Learning Environment)



How to help students develop emotionally and socially (MSEP 2: Student
Learning; MSEP Standard 5: Lea
rning Environment)



How to integrate technology and service learning into educational practice


Who we teach


Knowledge of Children and Youth (Embracing Diversity)



How students develop and learn (MSEP 2: Student Learning)



Similarities/differences across c
ommunities, cultures, learning styles,
abilities, special needs, and lifestyles (MSEP 3: Diverse Learners)



Current issues affecting children and youth (MSEP 9: Reflection and
Professional Development; MSEP 10 Collaboration, Ethics, and
Relationships)


Wher
e we work


Contexts of Schools (Collaborating effectively; Being
Knowledgeable in Content)



Foundational knowledge of schools and education in the US (MSEP 9:
Reflection and Professional Development)



Collaboration and teaming skills (MSEP 10: Collaboration
, Ethics, and
Relationships)


Who we are as individuals and teachers


Personal Stance and Knowledge base
(Reflecting Critically; Being Knowledgeable in Content; Being Ethical in
Practice; Developing Future Educational Leaders)



What I know and how I learn
(MSEP 1: Subject Matter)



How I think: Critically, Creatively, Ethically, Reflectively (MSEP Subject
Matter; MSEP 9: Reflection and Professional Development)



Who I am as a person and how that impacts my teaching (MSEP 9:
Reflection and Professional Developm
ent)



What my role can be as a teacher within and beyond school (MSEP 9:
Reflection and Professional Development; MSEP 10 Collaboration,
Ethics, and Relationships)



What I believe to be true about education and people; personal philosophy
of education (MSEP
9: Reflection and Professional Development)



What I can do to develop as a professional (MSEP 9: Reflection and
Professional Development)



How I communicate and understand the communication of others (MSEP
6: Communication: MS 10: Collaboration, Ethics, and
Relationships)


Augsburg pre
-
service teachers learn to examine their practice critically, reflecting
on both what works and what doesn’t to motivate student learning. They learn to
understand that gaining and applying knowledge in the service of student le
arning
is a fluid, intellectual task


one that leads to professional growth only when there
is constant appraisal and interpretation of actions taken along the way. They begin
to recognize that acquired knowledge and practice are not static, but rather th
at
true learning requires them to engage in an ongoing intellectually driven process
of testing out, stepping back and reflecting on practices. As part of that process,
our pre
-
service teachers learn to recognize what works with a group of students
and wha
t doesn’t, retaining those strategies and practices that promote learning
and rethinking those that don’t. Schon (1983) describes this as reflection
-
in
-
action. Reflection
-
in
-
action allows teachers to adjust and adapt to differences in
students by combining

knowledge of content, knowledge of students, and
knowledge of strategies in such a way as to maximize student learning. The
Augsburg Education Department structures experience with “reflection
-
in
-
action”
as part of coursework requirements and the student
teaching supervision we
provide.



Teachers, as well
-
prepared professionals, gain their specialized skills and
knowledge about teaching and learning through high
-
quality, standards
-
based
teacher preparation programs that integrate practical experience with

teaching and
learning theory, that provide ample opportunity to work with children and youth
in numerous teaching situations, and that emphasize the accountability for student
achievement that people in our profession accept as part of their role (Darling
-
Hammond and Sykes, 2003).

The Augsburg Education Department believes that
teaching, as a profession, plays too large and too important a role in society to be
thought of as simply a job that requires high verbal skills, minimal training, and a
good attit
ude. As professionals, teachers surround solid content knowledge with
knowledge of children and youth, knowledge of context, knowledge of self,
pedagogical resources and abilities, and a strong belief in the power and necessity
of education in order to be
st serve their students.



Teachers as Inclusive Practitioners:


The Augsburg Education Department believes that teachers are moral stewards in
the classroom, acting both as educators and community builders amongst all
students. Furthermore, the Augsburg
College Education Department believes that
teachers have an ethical and moral responsibility to promote learning amongst
all students.
This implies several things.


First, teachers have the responsibility to create welcoming environments for the
broad ran
ge of students who walk into their classrooms, seeking to build strong
relationships and a sense of community with and among students (Banks, et.al.,
2001). In some cases this means understanding the diverse cultural backgrounds
of the students they teach,

and when they don’t, understanding it is their
responsibility to gain this information and use it to create a welcoming
environment conducive to learning. Some refer to this as having an empathic
disposition towards diverse populations (McAllister, 2002).


Second, teachers have the responsibility of recognizing each student as someone
with the potential to learn whom they have the potential to teach (Tomlinson,
2003). In some cases this means understanding and believing that children who
learn differently
can learn and can learn with them as their teacher. It means
having the propensity to reflect on what they know about teaching and learning,
how to apply it with children who have special learning needs, and where to get
help for these children and themsel
ves when they need it. It means recognizing
and honoring the multiple intelligences and learning styles that are present in any
classroom setting.


Third, teachers have the responsibility to view families and community members
as resources in promoting th
e learning of all students. In some cases this means
welcoming them into the classroom and school. In other cases this means meeting
families and community members outside school, in homes and/or on neutral
ground. In all cases, it means regarding families

and community members as
valuable sources of support, information and help in the process of promoting
learning for all students.


Teachers as Leaders:

The Augsburg Education Department believes that
teachers, by the nature of their position, serve as lea
ders within the classroom,
and


with experience, increased confidence, and some training


as leaders
within the school, the district, and the community
.
Furthermore, the Augsburg
Education Department believes it is important to help pre
-
service teachers
acquire the traits and skills of leadership.
As leaders, these teachers ideally
possess the following characteristics:



Teacher leaders keep student learning at the center of their work.



Teacher leaders are advocates for their students and inspire in others

a
shared vision of student potential.



Teacher leaders are role models and mentors for students and colleagues,
acting on their behalf as well as enabling them to take appropriate action.



Teacher leaders are hard working and committed to their profession,
seeing themselves as engaged in a vocation rather than simply a job.



Teacher leaders are highly involved in curriculum development and
instructional innovation, routinely demonstrating expertise through their
teaching.



Teacher leaders are collaborators, d
rawing on the expertise of others and,
in turn, making themselves available as resources.



Teacher leaders seek challenges.



Teacher leaders view themselves as life
-
long learners, valuing knowledge
as an essential tool for thinking critically and participati
ng effectively as
world citizens.


The Augsburg Education Department also believes that, as leaders, teachers of
the early 21
st

century need to embrace the role of technology in education, using
technology to advance student learning, to enhance their teac
hing, and to
streamline their work
. Our teacher education programs must help our pre
-
service
teachers realize that their actions and decisions will help others to take advantage
of the technology available to them and their students. It will become their
professional responsibility to advocate the use of technology within their schools,
using technology competently themselves, and sharing their vision and knowledge
with others in order to help schools capitalize on the technology available to them.
(Augsbu
rg College Education Department, 2003) It remains our responsibility as
teacher educators to provide examples of best practices related to technology in
our classrooms both in the teaching we do and in the skills we help our pre
-
service teachers acquire. (
Russell, et.al. 2003)



Teachers as Lifelong Learner:

The Augsburg College Education Department
believes that teachers develop their abilities, including their leadership abilities,
over time and with experience.
An effective pre
-
service teacher education
program must attend to the developmental needs of its students, the majority of
whom feel the need for a practical, craft development focus. (MetLife, 1990;
Lieberman and Miller, 1984). Our programs acknowledge the importance of
meeting students’ perceived

needs by modeling to and with our pre
-
service
teachers a set of practical strategies for planning, instruction, assessment, and
classroom management that are conceptually and theoretically consistent with
constructivist learning theory. We believe that pr
e
-
service teachers make sense of
strategies by interacting with them in the college classroom and in their K
-
12 field
experience. A focus on becoming a competent classroom decision maker and
leader is appropriate for the majority of our pre
-
service teacher
s.


However, the Augsburg College Education Department also believes that adults
who return to college to acquire their teaching license sometimes have life
experience that allows them to incorporate leadership issues and experiences into
their initial lic
ensure program. This is especially true for those already holding a
baccalaureate degree. For this reason, Augsburg offers an initial licensure option
at the masters degree level with a partial focus on examining and developing
personal leadership abilitie
s within the context of teaching. Our Master of Arts in
Education (MAE) program recognizes that experience in life


as well as in
teaching


enhances the pre
-
service teacher’s sense of personal authority and
confidence in their knowledge of the world tha
t can move them more quickly to
give leadership beyond the classroom walls as well as within them. The MAE
program provides leadership opportunities throughout licensure coursework and a
focus on issues of leadership as part of the degree completion cours
ework.


Finally, the Augsburg College Education Department believes that our programs
should encourage pre
-
service teachers to value raising questions as well as
finding answers

and to incorporate that attitude in lesson design and instruction.
This value
of raising questions is also encouraged throughout our programs in the
critical assessment of the status quo in education and society. With this focus on
questions as well as answers we hope to develop beginning teachers who have a
repertoire of concrete s
trategies, experience in analyzing classroom situations and
making instructional decisions, and the propensity to ask questions, think
critically, and act ethically


all very practical concerns of educational leaders and
lifelong learners.






Key Ideals

The Augsburg College Education Department shares the following key ideals and
uses them to make decisions about our work with our pre
-
service teachers. Many
of these items were developed as part of earlier self
-
studies. Most reinforce and/or
expand upon o
ur belief statements. All are important to us and merit personal and
collective attention as we make decisions about our programs, our courses, and
the students we teach. Not all are fully achieved; hence, they represent our ideals.




Teachers are moral for
ces within their schools (Perrone, 1991). The
decisions they make and the examples they set impact the lives of children
and youth. Teachers must operate within a decision
-
making framework in
which ethical considerations are raised. Our teacher education p
rograms
model the inclusion of ethics and the development of a personal ethical
base from which to operate as a classroom decision maker.




Teacher leaders are first and foremost competent classroom decision
makers (Perrone, 1991) who have the right and res
ponsibility to exercise
leadership in matters of teaching and learning at the institutional as well as
classroom level. Our teacher education programs focus primarily upon
developing classroom leadership abilities amongst our pre
-
service teachers
because
that is our main charge; however, a secondary focus on
developing institutional leadership abilities is also important, especially
amongst our graduate population.




Teachers who are good classroom decision makers are “…able to inquire
into teaching and lea
rning and think critically about their work” (Doyle,
1990, p 6). Our teacher education programs reflect the use of pedagogical
strategies that promote critical thinking and reflection
-
in
-
action (Schon,
1983).




Learning to teach well is a life long developm
ental process. Pre
-
service
and beginning teachers must have a realistic sense of where they are on
this developmental continuum, see themselves as capable learners who
will continue to learn and grow even as they teach, and actively pursue
opportunities to

increase their skills and abilities (Burden, 1990). Our
teacher education programs support their development at whatever level
they are at.




Learning to teach well is an intellectual as well as a technical process
(Cochran
-
Smith, 2003). Good teachers thin
k about and evaluate what they
do as well as implement practices. Our teacher education programs
support the development of intellect when it causes pre
-
service teachers to
raise questions as well as answer them and to reflect on practice as well as
carry
it out.




Learning to teach well is a matter of the heart as well as the head (Palmer,
2003). Building positive relationships with students is essential to creating
an environment conducive to learning. (Nieto, 2003) Our teacher
education department models
an ethos of caring and flexibility, setting the
tone for what we hope our pre
-
service teachers will do in their own
classrooms. In doing so we balance the need for upholding standards and
rules with the need to recognize and respond to individuals.




Good e
ducation is designed to meet the needs of the students involved
(McAllister, 2002). Our teacher education programs prepare teachers to be
knowledgeable, flexible, resourceful, creative, and sensitive in designing
conditions in which diverse populations of
students can learn.




“…[O]ne of the classroom teacher’s most important jobs is managing the
classroom effectively.” (Marzano, R. & Marzano, J., 2003, p.6). Good
education considers the context of the setting in which students learn. Our
teacher education
programs help pre
-
service teachers examine classroom
organization and management strategies that are positive and preventive in
nature and designed to support student

achievement as well as create
positive learning environments.





Good education is best p
rovided by a capable, diverse cadre of teachers.
Our teacher education student population is diverse along a variety of
measures, our department welcomes this diversity, and our program
focuses on developing the abilities of all our students.




Good educa
tion is best provided by teachers who are knowledgeable in the
liberal arts and globally aware. Our teacher education programs have a
solid foundation in the liberal arts and our department has strong
relationships with the departments that provide the lib
eral arts foundation.
Also, our programs support the broadening of our pre
-
service teachers’
world
-
views through global education course opportunities and inclusion
of global perspectives in campus
-
based coursework.




Children and youth bring a full range o
f strengths and needs to school to
be recognized and served. While our teacher education students must
acknowledge that developing academic competency in children and youth
is their primary responsibility, they must also understand the impact that
social,
emotional, and economic strengths and needs have on learning.
This implies that our students need to see themselves as collaborators in
the process of educating children and youth rather than sole proprietors.
Our teacher education programs support this de
velopment through the
content of our courses and the attitudes of our faculty.




Collaborating successfully with colleagues, family and community
requires specific group process skills and the opportunities to practice
them. Our teacher education programs f
ocus on developing and
reinforcing pre
-
service teachers’ abilities to work effectively in small
work groups, in one
-
on
-
one conversations, and in large group settings.




Bibliography


Augsburg College Education Department. (2003). Teacher educators tea
ch future
teachers the art of being a professional. In S. Schmieder (Ed).
Dreams and
Shadows: Portraits of a Professional
(pp.7
-
9). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg
College PT3 Project and JDL Technologies.


Banks, James, Peter Cookson, Geneva Gay, Willis D. Ha
wley, Jacqueline Jordan
Irvine, Sonia Nieto, Janet Ward Schofield, Walter G. Stephan. (2001). Diversity
within unity: Essential principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural
society. Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington, S
eattle.


Burden, Paul. (1990). Development in teachers. In W.R. Houston (Ed).
Handbook of Research on Teacher Education.

Association for Teacher
Education.


Cochran
-
Smith, Marilyn. (2003). Teacher education’s Bermuda Triangle:
Dichotomy, mythology, and
amnesia.
Journal of Teacher Education,
54(4), 275
-
279.


Darling
-
Hammond, Linda and Gary Sykes. (2003, September 17). Wanted: A
national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the “highly
qualified teacher” challenge.
Education Policy An
alysis Archives,
11(33).
Retrieved October 1, 2003 from.


Doyle, Walter. (1990). Themes in teacher education research. In W.R. Houston
(Ed).
Handbook of Research on Teacher Education.

Association for Teacher
Education.


Lieberman, Ann and Lynn Miller.
(1984).
Teachers, their world and their work:
Implications for school improvement.

Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.


Marzano, R. and J., Marzano. (2003). The key to classroom management.
Educational Leadership,

61(1), 6
-
13.


McAlli
ster, Gretchen. (2002). The role of empathy in teaching culturally diverse
students: A qualitative study of teachers’ beliefs.
Journal of Teacher Education,

53(5) 433
-
443.


Nieto, Sonia. (2003). Challenging current notions of "highly qualified teachers"
th
rough work in a teachers' inquiry group.
Journal of Teacher Education,

54(5)
386
-
398.


Palmer, Parker. (2003).Teaching with heart and soul: Reflections on spirituality in
teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education,
54(5) 376
-
385.


Perrone, Vito. (1991)
. A letter to teachers: Reflections on schooling and the art of
teaching. Jossey
-
Bass Publishers.


Russell, Michael, Damean Bebell, Laura O’Dwyer, & Kathleen O’Connor.
(2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for pre
-
service and in
-
service t
eacher preparation.
Journal of Teacher Education,

54(4) 297
-
310.


Schon, D. (1983).
The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action.

NY: Basic Books.


Tomlinson, Carol Ann. (2003). Deciding to teach them all.
Educational
Leadership
, 61(2) 6
-
11.




Bibliography


The following references reflect a sample of the knowledge base that
influences the thinking of our full
-
time unit faculty. The references are organized
under the program dimensions they primarily support.



What we do


Concepts an
d Strategies of Teaching


Armstrong, T. (2003). The multiple intelligences of reading and writing: Making words
come alive. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.


Carr, Judy F., & Douglas E. Harris. (2001). Succeeding
with standards: Linking

curriculum, assessment, and action planning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD


Danielson, Charlotte. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school

improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD


Eisner, E.

(2004)

Preparing for Today and
Tomorrow:

...Not a sound basis on

which to plan a curriculum,

Educational Leadership
, 61 (4), 6
-
11.


Fosnot, Catherine Twomey, and Maarten Dolk. (2001) Constructing number

sense, addition, and subtraction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


Janney, R. & Snell,

M.E. (2000). Behavioral support. Baltimore: Paul Brookes


Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond Discipline: From compliance to community. Alexandria, VA.:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.


Lovett, H. (1996). Learning to Listen: Positive app
roaches and people with difficult
behavior. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.


Lynch
-
Brown, C and C.M. Tomlinson. (2002). Essentials of children’s literature. 4
th

Edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.


Ma, Liping. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathemati
cs. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Marlowe, B. & Page, M.

(1998).

Creating and sustaining the constructivist

classroom.

Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.


Marzano, Robert J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD,


Marzano, Robert J., Jana S. Marzano, and Debra J. Pickering. (2003). Classroom

management that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD


Murphy, K., DePasquale, R., & McNamara, E. (2003).

Meaningful connections:


Using technology in primary c
lassrooms.

Young Children
, 58(6), 12
-
19.


National Council of Teachers of mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles

and standards for school Mathematics.. Reston, VA: NCTM.


Routman, Regie. (2000). Conversations: Strategies for teaching, learning, and evalu
ating.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


Sapon
-
Shevin, M. (1999). Because we can change the world: A practical guide to
building cooperative, inclusive classroom communities. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.


Valmont, William. (2003). Technology for literacy tea
ching and learning. New York,
NY: Houghton Mifflin.


Weber, Ellen. (1999). Student Assessment that Works. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon


Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (1998).

Understanding by design.

Alexandria, VA:

ASCD


Wolfe, Patricia. (2001). Brain matte
rs: Translating research into classroom practice

Alexandria, VA: ASCD



Who we teach


Knowledge of Children and Youth

Biklen, D. (1992). Schooling without labels: Parents, educators and inclusive education.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.


Danfor
th, S. & Taff, S.D. (2004). Critical readings in special education. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.


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


Fadiman, Anne. (1997). The spirit catche
s you and you fall down. New York: The
Noonday Press.


Garcia, Gilbert G., Ed. (2003). English learners: Reaching the highest level of English
literacy. Newark, DL: IRA.


Gardner, Howard. (1993)

Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York:
Per
ennial.


Kalyanpur, M. & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education: Building reciprocal
family
-
professional relationships. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.


Ladson
-
Billings, Gloria, (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers
in diverse cla
ssrooms.

San Francisco: Jossey
-
Bass.


Landsman, Julie. (1993). Basic needs: A year with street kids in a city school.
Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.


Orenstein, Peggy. (1994). Schoolgirls: Young women, self
-
esteem, and the confidence
gap. New York,
NY: Doubleday.


Paley, Vivian Gussen. (1979). White teacher. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.


Silver, Harvey F., Richard W. Strong, & Matthew J. Perini. (2000). So each may learn:


Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. Alexandr
ia, VA: ASCD.


Tapscott, Don. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York,
NY: McGraw
-
Hill.


Turnbull, A. & Turnbull, R. (2001). Families, professionals and exceptionality:
Collaborating for empowerment. Upper Saddle River NJ:
Prentice Hall.



Where we work


Contexts of Schools
.


Erickson, J.A. and J.B. Anderson, Eds. (1997). Learning with the community: Concepts
and models for service
-
learning in teacher education. Washington, DC: AAHE.


Kohn, A. (1999). The schools our child
ren deserve: Moving beyond traditional
classrooms and “tougher standards”. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.


Kozol, Jonathan. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Perennial.


Kozol, Jonathan. (1995). Amazing grace. New York: Perennial.


Kozol, Jonathan. (20
00). Ordinary resurrections. New York: Perennial.


Mondale, S. and S.B. Patton, Eds. (2001). School: The story of American public
education. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.


Payne, Ruby. (1998). A framework for understanding poverty. Baytown, TX: RFT
Publishing
, Co.


Skritic, T. M. (1991). Behind special education” A critical analysis of professional
culture and school organization. Denver: Love Publishing.



Who we are as individuals and teachers


Personal Stance and Knowledge
-
base


American Federation of T
eachers. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What
expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: AFT.


Darling
-
Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters.
Journal of Teacher

Education

51(3), 166
-
173.


Darling
-
Hammo
nd, L. and G. Sykes. (2003, September 17). Wanted: A national teacher
supply policy for education: The right way to meet the “highly qualified teacher”
challenge.
Education Policy Analysis Archives,
11(33). Retrieved 9/16/03 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v
11n33/.


Education Commission of the States. (2003). Executive summary: Eight questions on
teacher preparation: What does the research say? A summary of findings. Denver, CO:
ECS.


National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Reacher Preparation for Re
ading
Instruction. (2003). Prepared to make a difference: Highlight of the report. Newark, DL:
IRA.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2003). No dream denied: A
pleadge to America’s children. Washington, DC: NCTAF.


National Reading P
anel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence
-
based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development.


Neito, Sonia (20
00).
Bringing bilingual education out of the basement, and other
imperatives for teacher education
.” In Lifting every voice: Pedagogy and politics of
bilingual education
,
edited by Zeynep Beykont. Cambrigde, MA: Harvard Educational
Review.


Nieto, Sonia
. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural
education, 4
th

edition. New York: Pearson Education, Inc. A&B..


Paige, Rod. (2003). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretary’s
second annual report on teacher

quality. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.


Palmer, Parker. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey
-
Bass.


Perrone, Vito.(2000). Lessons for new teachers. Boston, MA: McGraw
-
Hill.


Wink, J.

(2000)

Critical Pedagogy:

Notes fro
m the real world. New York, NY:

Longman.