THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING (UW)
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (COE)
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Adopted: May 4, 2004
Preface
The UW COE Conceptual Framework delineates the theories, beliefs, knowledge bases and practices that guide our college, our programs, our research, our courses and our field experiences. This document provides the foundation of our vision for the preparation of P-12 school personnel and lends a structure and direction for us in the implementation of the vision, while allowing us to adapt to unique and unpredictable events that await us.
The reader should note that while this document sets this conceptual framework for the UW College of Education, it has been collaboratively developed with input from multiple internal and external constituencies, including faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Health Sciences, K-12 faculty and administrators from partner schools and from the Wyoming School-University Partnership, colleagues in the community college settings, and others. This conceptual framework lays the foundation for the “unit” which is defined as inclusive of all programs which lead to certification or endorsement for any classification of public school personnel.
As scholar-practitioners, the UW College of Education faculty recognize the critical roles of our partners in the delivery of professional preparation programs: Outreach, graduate programs, community colleges, etc. We view the conceptual framework and its associated outcomes as a way to link these programs in a common mission while accommodating individuality and supporting innovation. Thus, our conceptual framework is meant to be a living document that is subjected to critical assessment, refinement, and adaptation. We expect to continue to engage in ongoing dialogue with all members of the professional education community within and outside the College and University, so that the conceptual framework continues to be a catalyst for essential debate, reflection, and action.
Many partners and a wide variety of constituents have shared in the definition and refinement of this document. We believe that this conceptual framework articulates the congruence we strive for across goals, beliefs, elements of our theme, relevant knowledge bases, unit outcomes, assessments, and course curricula.
The Conceptual Framework
Our theme, “Developing Competent and Democratic Professionals,” threads through the work we collectively undertake in our teacher education programs and in all the programs delivered in the COE. The theme is intentional in that each piece represents a series of core theories, knowledge bases, beliefs, and practices. The theme is briefly dissected and described here, but by design will continue to unfold and connect throughout this document.
In our theme, the use of the term “professionals” is deliberate for a number of reasons. Using the term “teachers” would exclude other education professionals in our unit. Professionals, in our usage, include researchers, counselors, administrators, teachers and professors. Additionally, the term “professionals” implies engagement in a discipline. It also implies a knowledge base to which the professional has a responsibility to understand and, in some way, contribute.
Vision
In our vision, the COE at the University of Wyoming will be: a place known to deliver respected undergraduate and graduate programs; nationally and internationally recognized for our focus on and achievement of high standards; a place where well-qualified candidates learn to be competent professionals, and skilled in the enculturation of the young into a social and political democracy; a place where everyone is dedicated to conducting research and exploring various meanings of teaching and learning from “multiple” perspectives; a place that demonstrates the belief that all children are valuable, worthwhile individuals who can and want to learn; a challenging yet supportive place; a place that values and models field-based experiences for education professionals.
We envision the college as being innovative, student-centered, and able to deliver quality content and pedagogical knowledge designed to develop an informed citizenry capable of maintaining a democracy, respecting humanity, and making informed decisions regarding our global environment and finite natural resources. We further envision the college being a center for collaboration, growth and learning, and focus on democratic ideals; a close-knit community of professionals who model effective teaching, across departmental lines and work together on program design, course delivery, and build a program that is attractive to many constituent groups.
Mission – University of Wyoming
“…[T]he mission of the University of Wyoming is to provide teaching, scholarship, and outreach programs that compare favorably with programs at the leading land-grant research universities in the nation. In addition, to promote development of the whole person, the University will provide a diverse array of superior co-curricular activities, including cultural, international, athletic, and student-life programs. The University will attract qualified candidates who will provide future leadership for the state and nation, and it will be particularly attentive to the needs of Wyoming students, members of underrepresented groups, and the gifted…” Though abbreviated, this statement represents the basis of the UW mission.
Mission – COE
Fundamentally, we believe that learners construct their own understandings and a responsible professional seeks to help the learner in that endeavor. Our programs incorporate curricula, activities, and assessments that demonstrate a prominent constructivist philosophy.
These belief statements encapsulate our collective philosophies related to education, schooling, teaching and learning.
Purpose
The overall aim of the COE is to assure that successful candidates complete our programs with the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to excel in their chosen field. During their preparation they receive excellent instruction from a faculty committed to providing productive and educative learning environments. Candidates demonstrate their proficiency in a variety of settings and levels and leave with confidence in their own ability coupled with a realistic sense of areas for continued growth. Candidate outcomes for the COE are further explicated in a supplemental document that details the Unit Assessment Plan. Candidates realize the value of inquiry and leave with the desire to be lifelong learners in a profession where unforeseen challenges develop. Finally, the purpose of education in the unit is to better candidate lives by helping them understand the responsibilities of living in a democracy and preparing them to contribute to learning in educational settings. These are the purposes to which we are committed.
Goals
The following seven goals have been articulated by the UW COE faculty in the UW COE academic plan. These goals will be given priority and resources as our college programs evolve through 2009. (Timelines for these goals are articulated in the COE planning document.)
Knowledge Bases
Each of our programs is guided by unique knowledge bases, theories and research. Some knowledge bases span programs and provide unit coherency. Others are unique to particular preparations in terms of depth and focus. Overall, however, these areas/knowledge bases unify our faculty, candidates, partners and programs.
Pedagogical content knowledge
Shulman (1986) delineated three categories of content knowledge in teaching: subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge. We believe that all three are important components of our programs. Ball (1988) documented the lack of subject matter knowledge that preservice teachers can bring to education courses. Thoughtful program requirements are important to us to ensure that quality subject matter or content knowledge is required for each program in the specific discipline from the appropriate College, department or departments defined in the various specialty program areas of NCATE as well as No Child Left Behind legislation. Our goal is adequate conceptual understandings of subject matter to ensure adequate potential for developing the pedagogical content knowledge for teaching in the content area.
Shulman (1986) also defined pedagogical content knowledge as “subject matter knowledge for teaching” (pg. 9). Pedagogical content knowledge includes knowledge of students’ conceptions and misconceptions about a topic, instructional strategies which include alternative forms of representation, knowledge of the curriculum for the subject matter, and the reasons for teaching a topic (e.g., Zeigler, 2002; Ball & McDiarmid, 1990; Marks, 1990; Grossman, 1987; and Shulman, 1986). Brown and Borko (1992) recommended that “acquisition of pedagogical content knowledge be a central priority in pre-service teacher education programs” because even experienced teachers have trouble expanding their pedagogical content knowledge base (p. 221). Our programs are responsible for pedagogical content knowledge so that our candidates have the potential to teach all children content in effective ways for children to construct useful understandings.
Theories of learning and knowledge
We believe learning to be a complex human phenomenon involving cognitive, physical, social, and cultural dimensions (Piaget, Rogoff, Slavin, Vygotsky). Consequently, throughout our programs we include a wide range of learning theories and emphasize that understanding and facilitating learning tasks is enhanced by the simultaneous application of multiple theoretical perspectives. Learning is also intertwined with and influenced by identity trajectories across the lifespan and related issues of motivation, self-determination, and participation in diverse communities of practice (Bandera, Lave & Wenger). Furthermore, learning is highly determined by individuals’ access to learning settings and resources and the legitimacy institutions ascribe to particular developmental pathways, cultural practices, and repertoires of beliefs, goals, and purposes (McDermott, Moll). Thus, we stress that all individuals, as a result of participation in their families and cultural communities, develop repertoires of knowledge that constitute important resources for formal learning. Finally, we also find the nature of knowledge to be extremely complex. In general, we hold knowledge to be historically and socially constructed and thus intertwined with the power relations extant within our broad socio-cultural milieu. We seek to prompt candidates in our programs to consider the practical ramifications of this conceptual orientation toward knowledge. In particular, we challenge ourselves and our candidates to recognize diverse ways of knowing and to validate cultural-specific knowledge bases.
Theories of teaching
Most would agree that it is difficult to distinguish completely between theories of learning and knowledge and theories of teaching. Indeed, we acknowledge significant overlap between these theoretical bases while attempting to thread both throughout the preparation programs and the conceptual framework. Nel Noddings’ works that advocate for education of the whole child while maximizing the cultural assets of all who are part of the learning environment is one example. Her more recent works emphasize a caring pedagogy which is also one of four basic tenets of the Agenda for Education in a Democracy (National Network for Educational Renewal). Theoretically, Noddings, Dewey and others argue for instructional environments that attend to academic development along with physical, moral, social, emotional, spiritual, and aesthetic aims. Wilson and Peterson (2006) emphasize the active construction of meaning as a primary theory of teaching. Their theoretical framework includes individual and collaborative work, use of student diversity as a resource for learning, and emphasis on both basic and advanced knowledge and skills. Meltzer, Pollica, and Barzillai (2007) remind us of the importance of a theory of teaching that emphasizes a challenging curriculum while incorporating teaching strategies to enhance executive function processes: goal setting, planning, organizing, prioritizing, shifting strategies appropriately, and self-monitoring. Fundamental understanding of standards-based education is implicit and explicit in our curricula.
Indeed, the teaching theories that we embrace support the notion that teaching is a complex practice. We believe that the techniques, trust, and responsiveness that Brookfield describes as essential qualities of effective teaching require grounding in teaching theory before and during novice practice. As teachers assume increasingly varied roles, share responsibility for teaching and learning with students, and work to continually improve their practice (Wilson & Peterson, 2006), theories of teaching provide a critical foundation. In a research study of teachers and theories of teaching, de Jong (2007) found that preservice candidates and inservice teachers experienced theory as an empowerment of their practice. That characterizes one goal of our programs.
Democracy and social justice
The knowledge bases related to democratic education and social justice also inform our college programs. As an affiliate of the National Network for Educational Renewal (an organization dedicated to an “Agenda for Education in a Democracy”), the writing and theories of John Goodlad, James Banks, Deborah Meier, the “Rethinking Schools” group, and many others impact our thinking around these topics.
Recent trends in education have focused too narrowly on basic skill acquisition. Meier (2004, p. 67) claims “a well educated person is [currently defined as] one who scores high on standardized math and reading tests.” Of course, we want our graduates, and the people whose lives they will touch, to have high levels of basic skills and we want them to be able to demonstrate their proficiency in multiple ways, but basic skills, as measured by tests or otherwise, are not enough. The United States is a democracy. As such, we view our roles as educators to include a commitment to preparing ourselves and our students for productive participation as citizens. Many claim schools and universities have lost sight of this aim (see e.g., Goodlad, 2004; Banks, 2002). “The skills, dispositions, and habits of intellect necessary for democratic citizenship have to be developed somewhere. People are not born with them” (Goodlad, Mantle-Bromley, & Goodlad, 2004, p. 28). We locate this responsibility “somewhere” in our institutions of public education (generally) and thus in the College of Education at UW (specifically).
We recognize gaps between the ideals of democracy--justice, equity, fairness, freedom, civility--and our current realities. Our college views the need to close these gaps as a moral imperative. Large percentages of our population do not experience equity, justice, or fairness. This disparity is evidenced in education. Poor children and children of color receive fewer resources, have less experienced/proficient teachers, are tracked into lower level classes, are more likely to be labeled learning disabled or behaviorally disruptive, and as a result manifest the much discussed “achievement gap” federal laws purport to address, but instead have exacerbated. “Improvement includes closing the race and class achievement gaps and helping to overcome the consequences of poverty and racism” (Neill, 2004, p. 109). “What we think is required to educate the richest of our citizens’ children should be available to the poorest-and then some” (Meier, 2004, p. 77).
This then places our focus on social justice. “Social justice as a part of education for democracy…holds the values of mutual respect and community at the center…a value in which individuals look to the common good” (Pang, 2005, p. 221). In doing so, we believe that the increasing diversity in our country is a tremendous resource which we must all better understand and value deeply. “Democratic citizenship education,” a primary aim of our programs in the College of Education, “seeks to teach among other things, that diversity is a social fact, that it is a social good, why this is so, and how diversity and democracy require one another” (Parker, 2003, p. 1).
Education that fosters democracy and justice is an ongoing, engaging mission. “Students must be actively engaged in learning to be a part of a democratic citizenry and not treated merely as passive recipients of knowledge” (Neill, 2004, p. 106). For us, this active engagement includes: reframing and broadening the goals for education; addressing inequities in schools, institutions, and ultimately society; and honoring the diversity in our classrooms and communities.
Unit Outcomes
We have identified three outcomes which unify the unit and the College in mission and purpose, while allowing programs to address specific standards and proficiencies at a more detailed level in their respective program assessment plans. The following three outcomes flow from our theme (Developing Competent and Democratic Professionals). All candidates in all programs in the unit and the COE are committed to meeting these outcomes. Importantly, these three outcomes bind together our unit’s diverse fabric of people and programs.
Outcome 1 - competence.
Candidates completing our programs will demonstrate their ability to function as competent professionals. Candidates will demonstrate:
Outcome 2 - democratic perspectives.
Candidates completing our programs will exhibit democratic perspectives and dispositions. Candidates will demonstrate values, beliefs and ethics that include:
Outcome 3 - professionalism.
Candidates completing our programs will document their aptitudes as professionals in their fields. Candidates will demonstrate and produce evidence that documents:
Aligned Candidate Proficiencies
Initial teacher preparation programs.
The UW faculty collaborated to define these College of Education Teacher Education Program Content and Performance Standards. They represent the result of many hours of broad-based discussions and incorporate principles from the National Network for Educational Renewal (NNER), the INTASC standards, the NCATE standards, and the state standards set by the Wyoming Professional Teaching Standards Board (PTSB). All preservice candidates are expected to meet these standards at a Proficient level prior to completion of their teacher education program.
Standard 1: DISCIPLINE KNOWLEDGE
The preservice teacher understands the central concepts of the discipline(s), the tools of inquiry used in the discipline(s), the structures of the discipline(s), connections among disciplines, and the importance of presenting multiple perspectives and representations within the discipline(s). The preservice teacher uses these understandings to create learning experiences for students that make these aspects of the discipline(s) meaningful to students.
Standard 2: DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES
The preservice teacher has knowledge of human cognitive, social, physical, emotional and moral development and understands how these factors influence learning. The preservice teacher understands the importance of teacher observation of students to gauge developmental abilities; sees development as both a socio-cultural and biological phenomenon. Although the preservice teacher understands the limitations of developmental theories, he or she is capable of forming a developmentally responsive pedagogy.
Standard 3: DIVERSE LEARNERS/DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION
The preservice teacher understands that schools are comprised of diverse learners who differ in their approaches to learning and that there are multiple theoretical models for understanding and addressing students’ differences. He or she plans instruction with the assumptions that all students can learn and employs instructional methods in ways that connect learning with the students’ diverse experiences and needs. The preservice teacher cultivates a mutually respectful learning community that values all students.
Standard 4: INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
The preservice teacher understands, employs, evaluates, and adjusts a variety of instructional strategies using a wide range of instructional materials and technology in order to achieve learning goals for all students. The preservice teacher understands and applies multiple instructional strategies, learning theories, and cognitive processes associated with types of learning.
Standard 5: DEMOCRATIC LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
The preservice teacher works to facilitate purposeful classroom and school learning environments that foster social interaction, active engagement, and collaboration. The preservice teacher uses knowledge of the historical, social, and political roles of schooling in the U.S. to ensure equity for all children, especially given the relationship between schooling and the reproduction/mitigation of inequalities in the broader society. The preservice teacher supports students to become critical participants in a democratic society grounded in principles of social justice, especially in the development of mutual respect, support, and critical inquiry in the classroom. She or he is competent in behavior management that is reflective of the needs and practices of diverse students. This competence includes classroom management skills, intervention strategies, motivational techniques, and monitoring and documenting student behavior. He or she critically reflects on personal history, beliefs, values, biases in relation to and as an agent of change within school and society.
Standard 6: COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUES
The preservice teacher understands effective communications strategies and the role of language in learning; models effective communication (including writing, speaking, and listening) using a variety of communications tools; and demonstrates sensitivity to economic, cultural, and gender differences in communication. She or he uses effective questioning and other discourse strategies that promote learner understanding and encourage convergent and divergent thinking. The preservice teacher uses, and facilitates the use of a variety of media communications tools and technology to enrich learning opportunities.
Standard 7: PLANNING
The preservice teacher can select and create appropriate learning experiences based upon principles of effective instruction, both as an individual and team member. The preservice teacher considers the following factors when planning for short and long-term learning: individual nature of the student; national, state, and district standards; curriculum goals; subject matter; assessment; instructional strategies; learning theory; student development; and learning styles. He or she evaluates plans and makes systematic adjustments as needed to address needs of the class and individual needs of diverse learners. The preservice teacher’s planning includes critically evaluating, adapting, and incorporating a variety of commercially and teacher-made materials to enhance instruction.
Standard 8: ASSESSMENT
The preservice teacher understands, selects, constructs, and uses a variety of assessment methods and strategies such as standardized, performance-based, individual, whole group, self, peer, and teacher evaluations. The preservice teacher understands issues related to the accuracy of assessment results. She or he uses assessment in conjunction with students’ experiences, learning behaviors, and parent reports to guide instruction, promote student growth, and for documentation. The preservice teacher understands tools of assessment, appropriate use of tools, relationship of instruction and assessment, and assessment issues.
Standard 9: REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER
The preservice teacher demonstrates self-assessment, individual and collective inquiry and life-long learning traits to support personal growth and professional development. The preservice teacher accesses resources such as literature, colleagues, observations, and/or classroom data to support her or his growth and development and that of colleagues. The preservice teacher recognizes his or her abilities to influence the teaching profession and collaboratively affect changes in the system by taking responsible action.
Standard 10: FOSTERING RELATIONSHIPS
The preservice teacher fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and others in the larger community. The preservice teacher cares about all students’ well-being; as a result the preservice teacher understands and implements relevant laws and consults regularly and in respectful, productive ways with all stakeholders. He or she understands and appreciates that factors outside school influence students’ lives and learning and is an advocate for students.
Advanced programs.
Our advanced preparation programs assess candidates on standards and proficiencies set forth in their respective program assessment plans. Graduate programs are aligned with relevant state and/or specialty professional association (SPA) standards. One example of such alignment is evident from the eight-year accreditation earned for the M.S. School Counseling and the Ph.D. Counselor Education and Supervision from the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) valid through March 31, 2012.
Initial Preparation Program Assessment System.
The outline of this assessment system is based on the three unit outcomes and is implemented with assessments at identified critical junctures of the initial teacher preparation program. With each critical juncture portion of the program, specific standards, elements of standards and assessment data are collected. The assessment system runs through the teacher education programs to the course level where (explicated in other documents) a series of “common assessments,” coupled with rubrics, provide the foundation of candidate assessment. In sum, assessments provide documentary evidence that all candidates are meeting the performance standards identified in the assessment plan. These data will be archived in an electronic portfolio system that shows evidence of progress related to preservice teachers’ knowledge, dispositions, and performance/teaching abilities. Rubrics (except for the Dispositions Rubric) are developed to reflect these levels: Novice, Basic, Proficient, and Exemplary.
Advanced Preparation Programs Assessment Systems.
Each advanced program has developed a program assessment plan that identifies the standards, critical junctures, assessments, evaluation criteria, and data collection methods and timelines for that program. These assessment plans also document how candidate performance data is analyzed and used to inform changes at the program level.
Aggregated assessment for continuous improvement.
In addition to collecting the usual sorts of candidate statistics (course enrollments, average grade given, time to degree completion, survey data and candidate demographics), we are aggregating data from our common assessments, rubrics, and other unit assessment system requirements. These aggregated data sets allow us to review our programs for gaps, duplications, and to inform decisions about program revisions. The assessment system, as supported by the electronic portfolio, allows us to monitor candidate performance and progress individually, by critical juncture, or collectively. Our courses and content are not static. Our assessment systems (for initial and advanced programs) provide us data-based directions for positive evolution and continuous improvement.