Transcript International Council on Education for Teaching 2011 World

The Benefits of Involving Multiple Stakeholders
as Equal Partners in the Teacher Education
Program Development Process
ICET World Assembly
Glasgow, Scotland July 12, 2011
Ellen Schiller, Ph.D. and Jacque Melin, M.A.
Grand Valley State University
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
[email protected] and [email protected]
The W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s Woodrow Wilson Michigan Teaching
Fellowship Program at Grand Valley State University (GVSU)
• A three-year funded graduate-level program to train 15 fellows per year
as secondary math and science teachers.
• Candidates apply through a competitive process through the Woodrow
Wilson Foundation. Final selections made by GVSU.
• Fellows must already hold undergraduate degrees in mathematics,
science, or engineering.
• Fellows receive $30,000 per year toward tuition and living expenses.
• Fellows must teach 3 years in a high-needs urban or rural secondary
school.
• Fellows receive certification at the end of 11 months, and a master’s
degree at the end of 15 months in the program.
The Purpose for Collaborative Program Design
• Our purpose was to create an outstanding graduate teacher
preparation program for prospective secondary mathematics
and science teachers who will teach in high needs schools and
facilitate the achievement of all of their students.
• In order to create a cutting-edge, clinically-based program, we
sought to create a program development team of
collaborators who represented the various stakeholders in the
teacher education process, including traditionally
unrepresented school teachers, curriculum and instructional
specialists, and administrators.
Identifying Participants in the
Collaborative Program Development Process
• Three local urban school districts were selected as partners for
developing the program and hosting the fellows during yearlong internships in math and science classrooms
• District superintendents were asked to identify their best
math and science teachers to act as program development
team members and mentor teachers
• The program development team consisted of 13 secondary
school teachers, curriculum specialists, and administrators; 6
Math and Science professors; 7 Education professors; and the
Dean of Engineering
Determining the Desired Result(s)
• To gain a shared understanding of the characteristics of
teachers to be developed through the teacher education
program, we asked, “What qualities characterize outstanding
and effective secondary science and mathematics teachers for
all students in high needs secondary schools?”
• When all of the stakeholders came together to begin the
program development over one week in May, 2010, different
perspectives became evident.
• To get past the differences, we found it helpful to list our ideas
and find areas of agreement. These common ideas framed the
characteristics we wanted for prospective teachers enrolling in
the program.
Clarifying the Component Tasks for
Designing with the End in Mind
Once the goal became clear, having common understandings of the
tasks facilitated collaborative planning. For us these tasks included:
• Deciding on the program’s philosophical orientation and model(s).
• Designing a program that supports our philosophy and model of
how to educate such a teacher.
• Basing the program on research and accepted practice and involving
prospective teachers in clinical settings for over half of the time.
• Integrating clinical work with academic components and courses.
• Addressing state and national standards and university degree
requirements.
• Meeting certification and endorsement requirements in 15 months.
Determining a Programmatic and
Philosophical Framework
• Professors shared several options for the programmatic and
philosophical framework of the program: clinical, medical, projectbased, content area pedagogy, target inquiry, disciplinary literacy,
and universal design for learning, in addition to state and national
standards.
• Only the school teachers and administrators were invited to critique
and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each potential
model, in regard to their opinions about how well each would
prepare fellows for teaching in high needs, urban school settings.
• We decided on a clinical model with rotations and a universal design
for learning orientation. The program also includes content area
pedagogy, project based learning, and disciplinary literacy in the
curriculum.
Developing a Program with its
Course and Clinical Components
• Once the framework was clear, it was time to combine ideas into a
sequence of integrated courses and clinical experiences.
• For us, this meant having smaller groups of 4-6 members co-plan
program components during the summer of 2010. Each group had
participants from the Colleges of Education and Liberal Arts and
Sciences as well as public school educators.
• Groups developed new courses, compacted courses, linked courses
across a year, and established a sequence of activities and academic
content that builds toward the desired goal.
• This resulted in course syllabi, clinical activities and internship
handbooks, and a proposal for experimental program approval.
Planned Program for Master of Education in Instruction and
Curriculum with an Emphasis in Secondary Level Education and
Secondary Certification in Mathematics or Science
Summer Courses and Credits
Becoming a Teacher (2)
Cultural and Social Development of Adolescents (2)
Facilitating Learning Environments (2)
Connecting Curriculum, Assessment, & Instruction (3)
Fall Courses and Credits
Facilitating Learning Environments (1)
Connecting Curriculum, Assessment, & Instruction (2)
Inclusive Practices (3)
Disciplinary Literacy for Adolescents (3)
Gathering and Using Data (2)
Winter Courses and Credits
Connecting Curriculum, Assessment, & Instruction (2)
Action Research (1)
Secondary Education Practicum and Seminar (6)
Second Summer Courses and Credits
Social and Cultural Foundation of Education (3)
Additional Course Needed for Master’s Degree, to be taken after previous courses
Master’s Project/Thesis
Additional Program Highlights and Components
• In addition to coursework, fellows will participate in weekly
Fellows Forum on-line discussions during the school year,
along with an iPad instructional integration study.
• Fellows will complete school-based internship rotations in
classrooms during the fall semester (September-December).
These classroom rotations will be linked to course assignments
and Fellows Forum discussions.
• Fellows will complete whole-day teaching internships during
the winter semester (January-April).
Using On-going Mentoring as a Way to
Support Novice Teachers
• Becoming an effective teacher who is able to support the
achievement of all students requires not only an outstanding
teacher preparation program but also a support system that
continues throughout the program and fosters professional
development during the first years of teaching. Since we do
not know where our prospective teachers will teach, we
developed an on-line communication and mentoring system
that will be supported by observations and drive-in sessions.
• The mentoring website is not public, but fellows can access it
through our university Blackboard system.
Program Component Review, Internal and External
Evaluation to Refine the Program and Document Success
• Internal and external evaluation is being conducted
throughout the three year span of the program, and will
follow fellows for three years into their teaching careers.
• The internal evaluation will focus on fellows’ scores on the
state certification tests, performance during classroom
observations, and mentor teacher and field coordinator final
evaluations. These will be compared to those of students in
our traditional undergraduate teacher education program and
our current Graduate Teacher Certification program.
• The external evaluation will focus on the achievement test
scores of fellows’ future students and track continued
employment/commitment to teaching.
Gaining Program Perspective through an Advisory Board
• An advisory board made up of administrators from across the
university and partner school districts can facilitate a broader
perspective and the program review process. Members
included the provost, deans, and district superintendents to
representatives of admissions, alumni, news and information,
student services, and internal evaluators, as well as district
human resources and secondary administrators.
5 E Learning Cycle Model
(Bybee & Landes, 1990)
• Engagement
Object, event or question used to engage students.
Connections facilitated between what students know and can do.
• Exploration
Objects and phenomena are explored.
Hands-on activities, with guidance.
• Explanation
Students explain their understanding of concepts and processes.
New concepts and skills are introduced as conceptual clarity and cohesion are sought.
• Elaboration
Activities allow students to apply concepts in contexts, and build on or extend
understanding and skill.
• Evaluation
Students assess their knowledge, skills and abilities. Activities permit evaluation of
student development and lesson effectiveness.
GANAG
(Jane E. Pollock, 2007)
•
•
•
•
•
G = State the GOALS (or standards) intended for the lesson
A = ACCESS prior knowledge that relates to lesson
N = Introduce NEW information or concepts
A = ANALYZE the new information or concepts
G = Restate the GOALS learned in the lesson (Generalize)
Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR)
Douglas Fisher & Nancy Frey
San Diego State University
www.fisherandfrey.com
TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY
“I do it”
Focus Lesson
Guided
Instruction
“We do it”
Collaborative
“You do it
together”
Independent
“You do it
alone”
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY
A Structure for Instruction that Works
In some classrooms …
TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY
“I do it”
Focus Lesson
Independent
“You do it
alone”
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
From Fogarty
& Pete –
Wildly Exciting,
2010
Anonymous Pre-Assessment
(Stiggins, 2006)
• Number paper from 1-5
• Answer questions in the following way:
• 5: I do this on an ongoing basis, or this happens all the time in my
classroom
• 4: I do this frequently, or this happens frequently in my classroom
• 3: I do this sometimes, or this sometimes happens in my
classroom
• 2: I do this infrequently, or this happens infrequently in my
classroom
• 1: I don’t do this, or this doesn’t happen in my classroom
Question #1
• I understand the relationship
between assessment and student
motivation and use assessment to
build student confidence rather
than failure and defeat.
Question #2
•I articulate, in advance of
teaching, the achievement
targets my students are to hit.
Question #3
•My students describe what
targets they are to hit and
what comes next in their
learning.
Question #4
•My students are actively,
consistently, and effectively
involved in assessment,
including learning to manage
their own learning through the
skills of self-assessment.
Question #5
•My students actively,
consistently, and effectively
communicate with others
about their achievement status
and improvement.
References
Bybee, R. & Landes, N. M. (1990). Science for life and living: An elementary school science program from
biological curriculum study. The American Biology Teacher, 52(2), 92-98.
Duncan, A. (2009). Teacher Preparation: Reforming the Uncertain Profession. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10222009.html
Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (n.d.) Gradual release of responsibility. Retrieved from www.fisherandfrey.com.
Levine, A. (2010). Teacher education must respond to changes in America. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2), 19 24.
Levine, A. (2011, May 8). The new normal of teacher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 57
(36), Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Normal-of-Teacher/127430/
Obama, B. (2011). State of the Union address. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the- pressoffice/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address
Pollock, J. E. (2007). Improving student learning one teacher at a time. Alexandria, VA: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Stiggins, R., Ater, J., Chappuis, S., & Chappuis, J. (2006). Classroom assessment for student learning:
Doing it right-using it well. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute.