PURDUE UNIVERSITY NORTH CENTRAL

Teacher Preparation Programs

Conceptual Framework

Created in 2006

Updated in 2012

Education Department

College of Liberal Arts

1

Table of Contents

Overview………………………………………………………………………………………….2

Mission, Vision, and Strategic Plans……………………………………………………………2

Conceptual Framework Model………………………………………………………………….3

Institutional Standards………………………………………………………………………..4-6

Dispositions and Professional Behaviors Evaluation Policy………………………………...6-7

Knowledge Bases……………………………………………………………………………...7-14

The Philosophy of Constructivism……………………………………………………...7

Dewey’s Philosophy of Education……………………………………….……………8-9

Child Development Theories………………………………………………………...9-10

Research on Collaboration…………………………………………………………….10

Research on Technology……………………………………………………………10-11

Research on Diversity………………………………………………………………11-12

Research on Reflective Practice…………………………………………....................13

Service Learning Approaches to Teaching and Learning………………………..13-14

Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Professional and State Standards……….................14

Description of the Unit’s Assessment System…………………………………………………14

Gate 1 - Prior to Admission to Professional Education Programs……………….15-16

Gate 2 – Prior to Admission to Student Teaching………………………………...16-17

Gate 3 – Program Completion: Recommendation for Licensure………………..18-19

Gate 4 – Post Graduation Follow-Up………………………………………………….19

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...............20

References……………………………………………………………………………………21-26

2

Conceptual Framework: An Overview

The unit perceives the conceptual framework as a living document that should be continually

assessed and revised in response to the rapidly changing world. The theme of the conceptual

framework has been changed from “Effective Educators Committed to Continuous Growth and

School Reform” to “Effective Educators Committed to Continuous Growth and Educational

Reform” since April, 2011. The institutional standards have also been revised and aligned with

the 2011 InTASC Standards, as well as the 2010 Indiana Standards and Teacher Effectiveness

Rubrics since the fall of 2011. Several program forms and assessment rubrics including program

admission forms, lesson plan rubrics, class observation rubric, and student teaching application

and evaluation forms have been revised based upon the revised conceptual framework. In

addition, the policies of dispositions and professional behaviors evaluation and academic

standing and dismissal have been implemented since the spring of 2012. These changes reflect

the unit’s belief that teacher preparation programs should prepare effective educators who serve

various educational settings and the unit’s commitment to continuous evaluation of the

conceptual framework in response to the most current state and professional standards. The

conceptual framework reflects the PNC Education Unit’s belief that effective educators not only

master professional, pedagogical content and content knowledge, but are also committed to

lifelong learning and ethical practice that lead to educational reform. The unit believes that PNC

teacher preparation programs should support candidates’ professional leadership and ethic

development and continual growth in not only necessary knowledge and skills but also necessary

dispositions and professional behaviors for becoming effective educators. The unit believes

effective educators should also be committed to their students’ continual growth and making

positive changes in the educational environment where they work.

Institutional Mission, Vision, and Strategic Plans

The mission statement of Purdue University North Central was last reviewed in 2008 when the

2008 – 2014 Strategic Plan was developed. The mission of PNC is based on the tradition of a

land grant university (Learning, Discover, and Engagement). Through Leaning, the university

offers all students educational programs and services that foster student success and goal

attainment in a student-centered environment. Through Discovery, the campus encourages the

creation of new knowledge, products, processes and applications through research and

scholarship. The cooperative efforts of students, faculty and staff are essential for success.

Through Engagement, the campus partners with and assists alumni, community members,

businesses and organizations. These activities involve knowledge, consulting, service learning,

volunteerism, economic development and related activities. The 2008 – 2014 Strategic Plan

contains four key areas of focus: Access and Success; Communication and Collaboration;

Community Involvement; and Resources.

The vision of PNC, a natural extension of that mission, is that “Purdue University North Central

will become the regional center of excellence for education, information, economic development

and culture.” The mission statement, vision and the 2008 Strategic Plan of Purdue North Central

were developed, revised and guided by the legislative codes of Indiana, the Indiana Commission

for Higher Education (ICHE), and the Purdue University Board of Trustees. The mission

3

documents of Purdue North Central are available through the academic catalog and the

university web site: http://www.pnc.edu/strategicplan.

Mission of the Unit

The mission of the unit is to serve area residents and varied educational settings with exceptional

teacher education programs. To fulfill this mission, we provide candidates with strong content

knowledge, pedagogy, optimal field experiences, and technological support. Our courses have

small teacher-student ratios to ensure that candidates receive ample individual attention and

feedback. Furthermore, most of the courses are primarily taught by full-time professional

Education faculty who are experts in their areas. As the University has a close relationship with

the local schools and educational agencies, members of the unit are able to work together with

the local schools and educational agencies to provide varied opportunities for candidates to learn

to be effective educators, to discover the fulfillment of becoming a life-long learner, and to

engage in the educational process as catalysts for educational reform. The unit is committed to

providing, assessing, and enhancing candidates’ knowledge as well as helping candidates

develop skills and dispositions that are necessary for becoming effective educators who are able

to foster students’ positive development through learning, discovery, and engagement.

The theme of the unit’s conceptual framework is represented in the model found in the following

Figure 1. The triangle was chosen as a symbol, to represent the relationship between the theme of

the professional education unit’s conceptual framework and the PNC institutional core beliefs.

At the center of the model is the unit’s theme: EFFECTIVE EDUCATORS COMMITTED TO

CONTINUOUS GROWTH AND EDUCATIONAL REFORM. The theme reflects the unit’s

commitment to supporting candidates to become effective educators committed to continuous

growth and educational reform. Surrounding the theme are Purdue University North Central’s

three institutional core beliefs of learning, discovery, and engagement, which we believe are the

fundamental elements of the educational process.

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework Model

4

The beliefs and values concerning education, the learning process and the teaching profession

have guided the formulation and development of the conceptual framework. It is grounded in the

following beliefs and values:

The Purpose of School and Education: We concur with Dewey’s belief that education

plays a vital role in social reform and change. We believe education in public schools and

educational settings should support individuals to become productive citizens who are

able to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good in a global society. To

accomplish the goal of “supporting the growth of good citizens,” public education must

provide students with equal opportunities to develop intellectually, physically, socially,

psychologically, and emotionally. Our programs focus on the development of the whole

person so that each candidate can serve as a social agent who is able to engage in the

process as a catalyst for students’ continuous growth, as well as educational reform and

positive changes in the educational environment.

Learning, Discovery, and Engagement: These are the core beliefs of the Purdue

University North Central campus. The unit believes that these core beliefs are the three

fundamental elements of the educational process. The unit’s belief is derived from

Dewey’s philosophy of experience that emphasized learning by doing. We interpret doing

within the educational process as engaging in a series of instructional activities. Learning

and discovery occur when individuals are actively engaged in meaningful and purposeful

instructional activities through which they process knowledge in order to construct

understandings and meanings rather than passively receiving knowledge. We believe

only through this kind of active engagement, meaningful discoveries occur, learning is

internalized, and knowledge and skills are applied.

The Characteristics of an Effective Educator: The unit has developed 10 institutional

standards as well as dispositions and professional behaviors evaluation rubrics which

characterize an effective educator. The institutional standards and dispositions and

professional behaviors rubrics are aligned with the 2011 InTASC Standards, 2010

Indiana Developmental Standards, 2011 Indiana Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation

rubrics, and other professional standards. The PNC Institutional Standards and

Dispositions and Professional Behaviors Policy are the framework for developing

effective teacher education candidates as they move through the levels of our programs.

We believe effective educators should have content knowledge, possess a mastery of

professional and pedagogical knowledge, and should be able to demonstrate performance

skills and dispositions. We expect candidates to exhibit professional behaviors regarding

teaching and learning; in particular, the support for the learning of all students, and the

utilization of educational technology. These beliefs concerning effective teachers have

served as guiding principles in the development of the unit’s standards and the associated

knowledge, performance, disposition and professional behavior indicators.

Institutional Standards

Ten institutional standards represent the proficiencies that all candidates must be able to

demonstrate upon completion of their initial education program. The standards are drawn from a

5

professional knowledge base that is aligned with the InTASC, NCATE, Indiana Content and

Developmental, and other professional standards.

Standard 1: Learner Development and Learning

The teacher understands how learners learn and develop, and can design and implement

developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences that support learners’ cognitive,

linguistic, social, emotional, and physical development.

Standard 2: Diverse Learners

The teacher uses understanding of individual differences and diverse communities to ensure

inclusive learning environments that allow each learner to reach his/her full potential.

Standard 3: Motivation and Learning Environments

The teacher uses understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning

environment that supports individual and collaborative learning, encouraging positive social

interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.

Standard 4: Making Content Meaningful

The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he

or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter

accessible and meaningful for learners.

Standard 5: Application of Content

The teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to

engage learners in critical/creative thinking and collaborative problem solving related to authentic

local and global issues.

Standard 6: Assessment of Learning

The teacher understands and uses multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in their own

growth, to document learner progress, and to inform the teacher’s ongoing planning and instruction.

Standard 7: Instructional Planning

The teacher plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, learners, the community, and

curriculum goals.

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies

The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage learners to

develop deep understanding of content areas and their connections, and to build skills to access and

appropriately apply information.

Standard 9: Professional Development and Ethical Practice

The teacher is a life-long learner who seeks out opportunities to grow professionally through

engagement in various professional development activities and the use of evidence to continually

evaluate his/her practice, particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (learners,

families, and other professionals in the learning community).

6

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration The teacher seeks out appropriate leadership roles and opportunities to collaborate with learners,

families, colleagues, other professionals, and community members to share responsibility for

learners’ growth and development.

Dispositions and Professional Behaviors Evaluation Policy

http://www.pnc.edu/ed/newforms120111/PRO.DIS&BEHA.FORMS120111/D&PPolicies.01121

2.pdf

The Dispositions and Professional Behaviors Evaluation Policy was developed and piloted in the

fall of 2011, and implemented in the spring of 2012. The principle objective of the policy is to

provide PNC faculty, staff, and candidates, university supervisors, and other institutional

professionals with rubrics, procedures, and forms that provide a fair and consistent evaluation of

dispositions and professional behaviors for all candidates. The evaluation focuses on candidates’

commitments to becoming effective educators, continuous growth, and educational reform. We

anticipate the evaluation process will enhance candidates’ understanding and awareness of the

Unit’s conceptual framework as well as the national and state-wide core dispositions and

professionalism presented in the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

(NCATE) and the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards

and the Indiana Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Rubric. In addition, the assessment data will

provide the Unit with valuable information and evidence for program improvement particularly

in support of candidates’ continual growth in dispositions and professionalism.

The evaluation rubrics are aligned with the 2011 InTASC Standards, and driven by the Unit’s

conceptual framework, as well as the Indiana Department of Education’s recent emphasis on

Planning, Instruction, Leadership and Core Professionalism when assessing Indiana teacher

effectiveness. The rubrics are used by PNC faculty, host teachers, cooperating teachers,

university supervisors, and other institutional professionals to assess each candidate’s

dispositions and professional behaviors as they progress throughout their program. The

dispositions rubric is used to assess candidates’ performance during field experiences and student

teaching. The professional behaviors rubric is used in all learning and teaching settings including

PNC and other institutional classrooms. The disposition evaluation rubric includes the following

ten indicators:

Learner Development and Learning

Diverse Learners

Motivation and Learning Environment

Making Content Meaningful

Application of Content

Assessment of Learning

Instructional Planning

Instructional Strategies

Professional Development and Ethical Practice

Leadership and Collaboration

The professional behavior evaluation includes the following twelve indicators:

7

Attendance

Preparedness

Respectfulness

Following Instructional Policies

Appearance (not for online course instructors)

Flexibility

Collaboration

Reflection

Communication

Integrity/Honesty

Continuous Growth

Educational Reform

Both disposition and professional behavior scores are stored in TaskStream, the electronic

assessment system the Unit uses to keep track of candidates’ performance throughout the

program. The scores demonstrate whether a candidate meets program expectations on each of the

above disposition and professional behavior indicators. Candidates who do not meet the

expectations of dispositions and professional behaviors are subject to disciplinary or remedial

action, up to and including expulsion from the Education program.

Knowledge Bases

The Unit’s conceptual framework is informed by a number of critical philosophies, theories,

research studies, and scholarly works involving teaching and learning. This section includes a

description of the knowledge bases for the following: philosophies of constructivism and John

Dewey; theories of child development and inquiry-based teaching; current research involving

collaboration, technology, diversity, reflectivity, and service learning which are reflected in our

theme and institutional standards.

The Philosophy of Constructivism

Influenced by constructivist theories (Piaget, 1954; Richardson, 1997; Vygotsky, 1978 & 1987),

we believe that knowledge is developmental, internally constructed, and socially and culturally

mediated. Learning from this perspective is viewed as both a self-regulatory process and a social

process. As a self-regulatory process, learning occurs within an individual in the process of

integration between existing conceptual structures and the new incoming information (Piaget,

1954). In this aspect, teaching is less a matter of knowledge transmission, but more a matter of

facilitating this self-regulatory process of knowledge construction and conceptual integration.

On the other hand, as a social process, learning occurs within an individual in the process of his

or her interaction with people and the environment (Vygotsky, 1978 & 1987). We believe

students can learn at any time and in any place. Students do not learn in isolation, but through

mass media, at home, and in their communities. As Blumer (1969) claims, meaning and

knowledge are negotiated in the course of social interaction. Learning from this perspective is a

product of an individual’s experiences which are embedded in social interaction. As learning

8

takes place in a context of meanings in which other participants (e.g., students, parents,

administrators, and community members) have different interpretations and understandings,

teachers should adapt teaching in local school and community settings in order to help learning

occur. In addition to possessing extensive knowledge of the content to be taught and pedagogical

methods to be chosen in classroom practice, competent teachers should have a deep

understanding of the characteristics of individual students, as well as the situational constraints in

the classroom, school and society in which they work.

In preparing students to be productive citizens, we believe public education should provide a

positive learning environment where students are encouraged to make connections between new

ideas and the existing knowledge they bring with them. Students should be provided with

opportunities to engage in various kinds of contextually meaningful experiences through which

they can develop, construct, and mediate their own knowledge. Teachers should also foster

nurturing and caring relationships in which students are encouraged to actively engage in social

interaction and learn about how an individual’s perspectives and contributions are appreciated

and respected within the community.

Dewey’s Philosophy of Education

As we stated previously, we believe there is a close relationship between school and society, and

the purpose of education is to prepare students for becoming responsible citizens in a global and

diverse democratic society. We believe that an effective educator is committed to social reform,

and that students should be aware of the world in which they live and know how to interact with

the world in meaningful ways that have a real sense of purpose. These beliefs are well supported

by Dewey’s philosophy of education.

According to Dewey (1964 & 1973), education is not an isolated enterprise but one closely

connected with, affected by, and achieved with and for social change. Education is largely

shaped and determined by social needs, consciousness, and circumstances, and in turn plays an

important role in social formation. In My Pedagogic Creed, Dewey (1964) indicates clearly the

close relationship between school and society, and declares explicitly, “education is the

fundamental method of social progress” (p. 437). In one of his Peking University lectures,

Dewey (1973) discusses the point in a more elaborate manner, saying:

The reconstruction of society depends, to a very great extent, upon the school.

The school is the instrument by which a new society can be built, and through

which the unworthy features of the existing society can be modified. In the school,

new elements of thought and new strength of purpose, the basic instruments of

social reconstruction, continue to come into being. Other institutions such as

agencies of law enforcement, the courts, political parties, and so on, do

contribute to social reconstruction, but none of them is as effective as the school,

because they are constantly confronted with obstacles which can be overcome

only by education (p. 213).

Education, therefore, is social. It is socially formed, affected, achieved, and oriented. School and

society become organically connected, and education paves the major avenue for social

9

development and construction. Given the increasing diversity in the public schools and our

pluralistic society, our program focuses on candidates’ development of reflective and critical

thinking skills, and their development of cultural and socio-political sensitivity. Ten institutional

standards were developed to ensure that our candidates are prepared to make professional

decisions about how to best meet the educational needs of all students and serve the school and

wider communities.

Child Development Theories

We believe that the purpose of public education is to promote the development of the whole

child. This belief incorporates a variety of child development theories and holistic approaches to

human growth that describe a variety of knowledge types and the areas in which a child can

grow. The works of Piaget (1960) help guide our thinking about the different ways a child thinks

and learns at different stages in his or her life. Piaget’s four cognitive development stages include

sensorimotor, preoperations, concrete operations, and formal operations. We believe it is

important for our candidates to understand these developmentally appropriate stages. Erikson’s

(1963) Psychological Theory places more emphasis on social and environmental factors as the

primary determinants of personality and describes eight psychosocial crises, or turning points,

which may result in either positive or negative characteristics. Maslow’s (1970) theory of

hierarchy of needs and Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences also suggest that there

are different levels of human needs and different types of knowledge of which a teacher must be

aware in order to help children develop.

We believe the understanding of these theories will prepare candidates to better serve their

students’ needs. We believe an effective teacher should not merely consider children’s

intellectual development, but also be concerned about children’s social, psychological, emotional,

and linguistically development.

We believe candidates should be critical thinkers and problem solvers who are able to analyze,

synthesize, evaluate and apply what they know to new and diverse situations in order to solve

problems (Bloom, et.al., 1956). We believe that candidates need to have critical thinking skills,

so that they may be confident and flexible in their problem solving abilities (Smylie, et.al, 1999).

A recent article by Gore (2001) confirms this point. The author highlights that a teacher’s

intellectual quality is one of the four dimensions of classroom practice that is essential for a

student teacher’s learning and for their subsequent success in bringing about high quality

learning outcomes for their students.

Candidates will encounter a variety of diverse situations in their classrooms and critical thinking

will enable them to be more effective in the teaching and learning process (Bruner, et.al., 1956).

They will be able to recognize teachable moments and make immediate decisions to facilitate the

learning process for all students.

The role of the faculty is to demonstrate an appreciation for higher level thinking skills and

provide opportunities for candidates to develop their higher level thinking skills. It is

intentionally taught for this reason and articulated to the candidates as a clear rationale for

faculty to teach in this way, so that candidates in turn will engage their students in critical

10

thinking/problem solving processes. A goal of our programs is to encourage candidates to

continuously engage in critical thinking/problem solving skills throughout their education and

during their professional career. Standard 4 has been developed to ensure candidates’

development and performance of critical thinking skills.

Research on Collaboration

Learning is a social process (Vygotsky, 1962; Bandura, 1977). We believe effective

collaboration is an essential skill for the learning process in schools and communities. According

to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1970), a sense of belongingness is a component of a positive

learning environment. This environment can be created through the use of collaborative learning.

The work of Slavin (1995) confirmed that students working together can produce significant

effects on achievement and inter-racial relations. As Utay (1997) highlighted, when students

collaborate with others, they are able to solve problems together and learn new information from

each other. They findings have been supported by recent studies in collaboration among students

in different educational settings (Chiu, Yang, Liang, & Chen; Lewis, 2011; Moolenaar, Sleegers,

& Daly, 2012; Trespalacios, Chamberlin, & Gallagher, 2011).

The faculty’s role is to model different collaborative strategies (Chen & Chuang, 2011; Johnson

& Johnson, 1999; Slavin, 1995). Our candidates will utilize these collaboration strategies to help

all students learn and to guide their own professional growth. These collegial interactions are

important and powerful motivators that support teacher learning and change (Ponticell, 1995;

Schrader, Stuber, & Wedwick, 2012). Zeichner & Liston (1996) promoted the idea of having

teachers involved “collaboratively and collegially seeking better to understand and thus improve

every aspect of the schooling experience” (p. 43).

Research on Technology

We believe that our candidates should be able to understand and utilize current technologies for a

wide range of situations and purposes. This belief aligns well to all three components of our

conceptual framework: effectively teaching with integrating technology as a tool to support

learning, continually growing in the rapidly changing world of technology, and leading

educational reform through teaching and learning in and innovative new ways.

As our world becomes more technologically advanced, faculty must model, and candidates must

be able to teach students to succeed in the 21st century (Prensky, 2010). This involves

communicating and collaborating using technology and engaging in creative and innovative

activities (Meloni, 2009). Recent updates to the standards of the International Society for

Technology in Education reflect these changes and provide a resource for teachers and what they

should expect for their students (ISTE, 2007, 2008).

A technology course is offered to candidates in order to increase their ability to use technology

more efficiently and exposes them to how they can be best used to support learning. This course

also exposes candidates to various legal, social and ethical issues regarding appropriate use with

students. Faculty model effective uses of current technologies in their own teaching, and

demonstrate how technological resources can support a variety of teaching topics. Education

11

faculty are very involved in continuing professional development in the area of teaching with

technology and lead the university in efforts to improve teaching with technology. Our campus

subscribes to Blackboard, and the education faculty maintain many of their course materials and

activities through this learning management platform.

Research on Diversity

We believe effective educators should understand that the diversity among student populations is

manifested in many dimensions. Our candidates are expected to create equal learning

opportunities by adapting instruction to meet the needs of students from diverse socio-cultural,

linguistic backgrounds and with exceptionalities. As Goodlad (1990) suggests in Teachers for

Our Nation’s Schools, given the increasing diversity in the public schools and pluralistic society,

teacher education programs should prepare teachers to make professional decisions about how to

best meet the educational needs of all students.

In response to the call for preparing teachers to work effectively with an increasingly diverse

student population, our program follows Goodwin’s (1997) suggestion that it “integrates

attention to diversity throughout the program’s various courses and field experiences” (p. 27).

Our candidates are not only expected to develop a deep understanding of multicultural education

and master culturally responsive pedagogies (Villegas, 1991) throughout their course

experiences; they are also provided various opportunities to work with culturally diverse students

in different settings.

This integrated approach to teacher preparation for diversity is well supported by multicultural

education educators (Gay, 1997; Grant, 1999; Zeichner, 1996). As many multicultural education

teacher educators argue, candidates’ multicultural experiences should be infused throughout the

entire teacher education curriculum and not remain on the margins of teacher preparation

(Goodwin, 1997; Maher, 1991: Noordhoff & Kleinfeld, 1991 & 1993).

In order for our candidates to appreciate, respect, and accept diverse students, they must see that

the faculty appreciates, respects, and accepts diversity. We therefore, believe that our candidates

should be given many opportunities to work in diverse settings to meet the needs of all learners.

Although diversity issues are interwoven throughout all coursework and field experiences, there

are specific courses that introduce theories and research regarding special education and

multicultural education.

In addition to the integrated approach multicultural education, we believe that our teacher

candidates should be able to work effectively with English Language Learners (ELLs). Effective

teachers must be able to design lessons and units that differentiate in their choice of instructional

activities and assessment in order to meet the needs of the ELLs, and effectively implement these

lessons (Echevarria, Vogt & Short, 2010). Teacher candidates must also know how to effectively

assess ELLs and to develop strategies to build not only ELLs’ content knowledge, but their skills

in reading, writing, listening and speaking in English (Herrell & Jordan, 2008), as well as how to

meet the emotional and social needs of ELLs (Miller & Endo, 2004). These beliefs are extended

to teacher candidates in a course that focuses on working with ELLs.

12

We believe that teacher candidates particularly in the Secondary Education program should be

prepared to work with sexual minorities and understand the struggles that they face, especially

the effects of bullying in the school setting (Reece-Miller, 2010; Miller & Endo, 2012).

Coursework in our multicultural education course in the Secondary Education program includes

such topics. An additional example to illustrate the importance we place on this goal, we

partnered with a school in Milwaukee where secondary teacher candidates worked in a service-

learning project with a school that has as its focus to be a safe place for all learners, especially

LGBTIQ2SA learners. After having spent a day in this school and reading and learning about

restorative justice and peace circles, the secondary students prepared a presentation that they then

made to many other education faculty and teacher candidates in which they engaged the

participants in a discussion about how what they learned might be applied in a mainstream

classroom.

Successful implementation of curriculum in diverse, inclusive educational settings requires

special efforts to respond to the educational needs of every student. Differentiation of instruction

is the response that the Unit has chosen education candidates to understand at a very high level.

Differentiated instruction is not a new concept. The one-room schoolhouse is a prime example of

teachers differentiating to meet the needs of all students. Differentiated instruction stems from

beliefs about differences among learners, how students learn, differences in learning preferences,

and individual interests. Teachers, by nature, have found a variety of ways to informally

accommodate the needs of different learners in heterogeneous classrooms (Corno, 2008;

Tomlinson, 2008). Differentiated instruction integrates what we know about constructivist

learning theory, learning styles, and brain development with empirical research on influencing

factors of learner readiness, interest, and intelligence preferences toward students’ motivation,

engagement, and academic growth within an educational setting (Tomlinson, 2004, 2008).

Teachers who differentiate their instruction know they are incorporating best practices in moving

all of their students toward proficiency in the knowledge and skills established in state and local

standards. Many argue that it is not at all idealistic to think that preK–12 educators can

differentiate instruction to meet all learners’ needs while also adhering to standards and state

performance testing (e.g., Baumgartner, Lipowski, & Rush, 2003; Brighton, 2002; Brimijoin,

Marquissee, & Tomlinson, 2003; Lawrence-Brown, 2004; Smutny, 2003; Sternberg, Torff, &

Grigorenko, 1998; Tomlinson, 1999; Tomlinson, 2000).

We believe that every child is unique, with different learning styles and preferences. We expect

our candidates know how to differentiate instruction based on students’ exceptionality, or even

by reading readiness. Teachers may opt to differentiate by ability or mixed ability level grouping.

In this way key skills and knowledge can be learned in a peer setting allowing for the social

construction of knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). Another way of differentiating is through choice,

which aligns learning with students’ affinities and topics of interest (i.e., geography, music,

foods, wildlife, and architecture). Differentiation may be made in the learning environment by

teachers based on what they know about students’ learning preferences (i.e., intelligences, talents,

learning styles). Moreover, allowing students’ choices in working independently, with partners,

or as a team; or providing varied work spaces that are conducive to various learning preferences

(i.e., quiet work spaces, work spaces with tables instead of desks) (see Borman et al., 2007). Of

the utmost importance to the teacher who differentiates is providing a learning environment and

opportunities that exclude no child.

13

Research on Reflective Practice

We believe reflection is a key component of effective teaching and is a means for a teacher’s

growth throughout the teaching profession. The significance of reflection in the teaching

profession is well documented in John Dewey’s (1933 & 1965) works and many studies in

teacher education (Clift, Houston, & Pugach, 1990; Collier, 1999; Cornish, 2012; Hagevil,

Aydeniz, & Rowell, 2012; McGarr & Moody 2010; Schon, 1983 & 1987; Taylor & Valli, 1992).

According to Dewey (1965), reflective thinking is a powerful tool for professional growth. He

argues that educators should learn strategies to think about their teaching so that they can more

effectively engage learners in the learning process. He believes that this kind of thinking about

one’s own teaching will lead to continuous improvement in both teaching and learning. As

Dewey (1933) stresses the importance of reflective thinking skills, he suggests that teacher

educators should include the development of reflective thinking in educational objectives.

According to Irwin (1987), a reflective educator is one who makes teaching decisions on the

basis of a conscious awareness and careful consideration of the assumptions on which the

decisions are made and the technical, educational, and ethical consequences of those decisions.

These decisions are made before, during and after teaching actions. Schon (1983) further

proposes “reflection in action.” This kind of reflection is grounded in Dewey’s philosophy of

learning by doing. Schon believes that teachers will develop the ability for continued learning

throughout the professional’s career if they engage in reflection in action.

To help candidates understand the interrelationship between reflection and professional growth

and to encourage reflective practice, our program provides a supportive environment where

candidates are given developmentally appropriate opportunities to reflect on their field

observation experience, and their professional and pedagogical growth. They are encouraged to

continuously use a variety of strategies for reflection to inform instruction as well as to promote

teaching and learning. A program assessment task is also created for the evaluation of the

performance of candidates’ reflective practice throughout their program experience.

Service Learning Approaches to Teaching and Learning

As one means to further develop candidates’ reflective stance, the Education programs at Purdue

University North Central have adopted the pedagogy of service-learning. Service-learning is a

credit-bearing, educational experience in which students participate in an organized service

activity that meets identified community needs and reflect on the service activity in such a way

as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and

an enhanced sense of civic responsibility (Bringle & Hatcher 1996). As an institution, PNC has

fully embraced this approach to student learning and development (HLC Self-Study, 2011, pp.

130 – 136).

The pedagogy of service-learning is an appropriate complement to the field of teacher

preparation as teachers not only work with children, but also interact with families, other

practitioners and community agencies. Candidates in Purdue North Central’s Education

programs experience this collaboration throughout their programs. Incorporating service-learning

into the teacher education program at PNC affords preservice teachers the opportunity for real-

14

world practice and provides candidates with a unique opportunity to study the authentic needs of

the learners in context (Root, 1994). The theoretical framework for utilizing this approach is

based on Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model (1977). In an academically based

community service approach, teacher education candidates elaborate their knowledge of issues of

diversity, social justice and community needs by applying their skills in a real-world serving

diverse families and children (Meaney, Griffin & Bohler, 2009; Cooper, 2007) Through

reflection, candidates articulate their role in the classroom and within the larger community

(Pigza, 2010).

Service-learning “enriches [the] academic life and life-long learning by engaging [students] in

meaningful hands-on service to the community while gaining valuable knowledge and skills that

integrate with the course objectives” (Schoenfeld, 2004). In several courses throughout the

Elementary, Early Childhood and Secondary programs, candidates engage in service-learning

experiences that connect the key course content to an identified community need. To this end,

candidates observe, experience and work in contexts that foster understanding of diversity and

social justice (Baldwin, Buchanan & Rudisill, 2007). Through the seamless union of meaningful

interactions with the community and the course content, the service and the learning become one

and the same.

Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Professional and State Standards

The alignment of our PNC institutional standards and assessment rubrics, which are a reflection

of our conceptual framework with the 2011 InTASC Standards, the Indiana Standards and

Rubrics, and professional standards, can be found in the following websites and links:

I.5.e.1 The institutional standards aligned with various standards

I.5.e.6 The institutional standards aligned with 2011 Indiana Teacher Effectiveness

Rubric

I.4.e.1 Program Admission Form: Early Childhood Education

I.4.e.2.a Program Admission Form: Elementary Education

I.4.e.3 Program Admission Form: Secondary Education

I.4.f Lesson Plan Rubrics (Early Childhood, Elementary, Secondary)

I.4.g Class Observation Rubrics: Early Childhood, Elementary, Secondary: Math

I.4.h.1-6 Student Teaching Application (ECEd, ElEd, SecEd: Math, SecEd: Chemistry,

SecEd: Life Sci, SecEd: Physical Sci)

I.4.j Dispositions and Professional Behaviors Evaluation Policy

I.5.b Professional Education Course Syllabi: Early Childhood, Elementary, &

Secondary Education programs

Description of the Unit’s Assessment System

The purpose of the PNC Unit’s assessment system is to evaluate program applicants’

qualifications, candidates’ performance, and the effectiveness of the unit and its programs in

producing “effective educators committed to continuous growth and educational reform.”

Authentic assessments, performance-based assessments and standardized assessments are

conducted and used in both formative and summative evaluations and in internal and external

15

evaluations of the candidate, program and unit. Information technology, specifically the Banner

and TaskStream systems, are used to develop profiles, generate databases and aggregate data

over time. Candidates’ demographic information, standardized test scores and course grades are

stored in Banner, the OnePurdue electronic system that facilitates grade reports for content

assessment. Candidates’ pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills, and disposition

performances are assessed through program key assignment, disposition and professional

behavior, and field experience and clinical practice evaluations. These performance scores of key

assignments, dispositions and professional behaviors, and field experiences and clinical practice

are stored in TaskStream, a web-based software and supporting services that allow candidates to

develop and manage e-portfolios and faculty to systematically document, organize and manage

assessment processes.

In addition to Banner and TaskStream, a Gate system is in place that allows for the assessment of

applicants, candidates and graduates at four transition points which include 1) before admission

to the program, 2) prior to student teaching, 3) upon completion of the program, and 4) post-

graduation follow-up. Multiple measures are used to ensure applicant qualifications and

candidate professional development throughout the program. The Gate system is also designed to

provide feedback for program review and revision. Some data such as course grades as

mentioned previously are stored in Banner and provided by the Office of Institutional Research

and course evaluations are stored in Digital Measures, an online university data management

system, administered by the Office of Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Other data such as

course/program key assignments, student teaching evaluation, and dispositions and professional

behaviors evaluation are provided by Education faculty and other stakeholders including PreK-

12 school personnel and employers.

Gate 1 Prior to Admission to Professional Education Programs

Time of Assessment: Generally end of the freshman year (completion of the 2nd

semester and

about 30 credit hours)

Evaluators: Academic Advisor and Program Coordinators

Assessment Process: The prospective candidate completes and submits a Program Application

for Admission Form to the Education academic advisor. The academic

advisor and program coordinator review the application materials including

the application form, transcripts, and standardized test scores. Acceptance

or Non-Acceptance is determined by the criteria listed in the below table.

Students approved for admission to the Elementary Education program

receive a letter from the Program Coordinator indicating the requirements

and expectations for the Block I (2.3.b.2.dElEdAdmissionLetter).

Program Gate Requirements

Early

Childhood

Education

Gate 1: Admission to

Program – Before Strand 2 Praxis I or equivalent state required exam scores at

Indiana pass level or alternate method (e.g., SAT

scores)

Criminal background check (self-reported)

Required content courses with a grade of “C” or

higher in Biology 205, Math 137 or 139, English

16

101, Psychology 120 & 235

Education courses with a grade of “C” or higher in

EDST 270 & EDCI276 (required courses)

Cumulative GPA 2.5 or above

Professional GPA 2.8 or above

Application/signature form of acknowledgement of

PNC policies

Elementary

Education

Gate 1: Admission to

Program – Before Block I Praxis I or equivalent state required exam scores at

Indiana pass level or alternate method (e.g., SAT

scores)

Criminal background check (self-reported)

Required content courses with a grade of “C” or

higher in Biology 205, Math 137 or 139, English

101

Education courses with a grade of “C” or higher

Cumulative GPA 2.5 or above

Professional GPA 2.8 or above

Application/signature form of acknowledgement of

PNC policies

Attendance to a mandatory orientation meeting

with Education faculty

Participation in an online survey and writing

assignment focused on the unit’s conceptual

framework

Secondary

Education

Gate 1: Admission to

Program – Before Block I Praxis I or equivalent state required exam scores at

Indiana pass level or alternate method (e.g., SAT

scores)

Successful completion with a grade of “C” or

higher in English 101, EDCI 105, and any

Education courses

Cumulative GPA 2.5 or above

Professional GPA 2.8 or above

Content GPA 2.5 or above

Application/signature form of acknowledgement of

PNC policies

Gate 2 Prior to Admission to Student Teaching Time of Assessments: Assessment 1 – The end of each semester after candidates are admitted

to the program

Assessment 2 – The end of the semester before student teaching

Evaluators: Assessment 1 – Academic Advisor, Department Chair, Faculty, and

PreK-12 school personnel involved in candidates’ field experiences

Assessment 2 – Director of Field Experiences & Program Coordinator

Assessment 1 Process: The Office of Institutional Research was requested to send candidates’

GPA data to the department chair on the 2nd

Friday after faculty turn in

17

grades in each semester (2.3.a.2.IRDateRequestForm). At the end of

each semester, Education faculty provide the academic advisor with

names of candidates who earn a C or below grade and the department

chair with names of candidates who do not meet disposition and

professional behavior expectations in their education courses. The

department chair reviews candidates’ GPA data and faculty’s report on

candidates’ dispositions and professional behaviors and meets with the

academic advisor to determine eligibility for continuance in the unit

program in following the PNC Education Academic Standing and

Dismissal Policy (2.3.a.3) and Dispositions and Professional Behaviors

Policy (2.3.a.4). A warning letter or an unacceptable

behavior/disposition notification form is sent to candidates who do not

meet the academic standing or disposition & professional behavior

expectation. See the attached policies (2.3.a.3-4) for details of

procedures and appeal processes.

Assessment 2 Process: The student teacher candidate completes a student teaching application

form and submits it with passing Praxis II scores, Philosophy of

Teaching, and Criminal History Clearance to the Director of Field

Experiences. The Director of Field Experiences reviews application

materials and examines candidates’ transcripts and Praxis scores to

ensure that each candidate meets the Gate 2 requirements. Candidates

not approved for student teaching receive a letter indicating the reasons

for the denial. The candidate may initiate an appeal as described in the

Academic Standing and Dismissal Policy and Teacher Candidate

Handbook.

Program Gate Requirements

Early

Childhood

Education

Gate 2: Admission to

Student Teaching –

Before the 2nd

semester

of Strand 4

Praxis II or equivalent state required exam scores

at Indiana pass level

Education Courses with a grade of “C” or higher

Cumulative GPA 2.8 or above

Professional GPA 3.0 or above

Successfully completed all the required courses

Acceptable dispositions & professional behaviors

Criminal background check

Application form for student teaching

Attendance to a mandatory orientation

Application/signature form of acknowledgement

of student teaching requirements

Elementary

Education

Gate 2: Admission to

Student Teaching –

Before Block VI

Praxis II or equivalent state required exam scores

at Indiana pass level

Education Courses with a grade of “C” or higher

Cumulative GPA 2.8 or above

Professional GPA 3.0 or above

Successfully completed all the required courses

18

Acceptable dispositions & professional behaviors

Criminal background check

Application form for student teaching

Attendance to a mandatory orientation

Application/signature form of acknowledgement

of student teaching requirements

Secondary

Education

Gate 2: Admission to

Student Teaching –

Before Strand 4

Praxis II or equivalent state required exam scores

at Indiana pass level

Education Courses with a grade of “C” or higher

Cumulative GPA 2.5 or above

Professional GPA 3.0 or above

Content GPA: 2.5 or above

Successfully completed all the required courses

Acceptable dispositions & professional behaviors

Criminal background check

Application form for student teaching

Attendance to a mandatory orientation

Application/signature form of acknowledgement

of student teaching requirements

Gate 3 Program Completion: Recommendation for Licensure Time of Assessment: Completion of student teaching

Evaluators: Cooperating Teachers and Other School Professional, University

Supervisors, Academic Advisor, Director of Field Experiences, Director of

Student Teaching and Department Chair

Assessment Process: The Director of Field Experiences and the Director of Student Teaching are

charged with the authority to recommend a candidate for licensure, and

responsible for coordinating meetings with cooperating teachers, university

supervisors and academic advisor to ensure that candidates meet the

student teaching, as well as disposition and professional behavior

evaluation expectations. The Department Chair signs the preliminary

degree audit forms and sends them to the Registrar’s Office after

consultation with the Director of Student Teaching.

Program Gate Requirements

Early

Childhood

Education

Gate 3: Program

Completion Successful completion of student teaching

Successfully met all degree requirements

Cumulative GPA 2.8 or above

Professional GPA 3.0 or above

CPR Certification

Proficient or Distinguished student teaching

evaluation

Dispositions and Professional Behaviors in the

“Acceptable” or above level

Proficient Teacher Work Sample

19

Elementary

Education

Gate 3: Program

Completion Successful completion of student teaching

Successfully met all degree requirements

Cumulative GPA 2.8 or above

Professional GPA 3.0 or above

CPR Certification

Proficient or Distinguished student teaching

evaluation

Dispositions and Professional Behaviors in the

“Acceptable” or above level

Proficient Teacher Work Sample

Secondary

Education

Gate 3: Program

Completion Successful completion of student teaching

Successfully met all degree requirements

Cumulative GPA 2.5 or above

Professional GPA 3.0 or above

Content GPA: 2.5 or above

CPR Certification

Proficient or Distinguished student teaching

evaluation

Dispositions and Professional Behaviors in the

“Acceptable” or above level

Proficient Teacher Work Sample

Gate 4 Post Graduation Follow-Up Time of Assessment: 1

st and 3

rd years after candidates’ graduation

Evaluators: Director of Field Experiences, faculty, program completers, completers’

school employers, IDOE, Executive Assessment Committee, and Advisory

Board

Assessment Process: The Director of Field Experiences invites program completers and their

employers to fill out an online survey questionnaire. The completers’

survey questions focus on completers’ satisfactory level of program

effectiveness in supporting them to meet the unit’s institutional standards.

The employers’ survey questions focus on employers’ satisfactory level of

completers’ teaching performances. The Director of Field Experiences

shares survey results with Education faculty at the Assessment Day

meeting and with the Advisory Board members at the spring meeting. The

Executive Assessment Committee makes decisions on program and unit

improvement based upon data and Advisory Board members’ feedback.

Program Gate Requirements

Early

Childhood

Education

Gate 4: Post Graduation

Follow-Up

Survey of graduates and their employers

State report on beginning teachers

Program completer tracking study

Elementary

Education

Gate 4: Post Graduation

Follow-Up

Survey of graduates and their employers

State report on beginning teachers

Program completer tracking study

20

Secondary

Education

Gate 4: Post Graduation

Follow-Up

Survey of graduates and their employers

State report on beginning teachers

Program completer tracking study

Conclusion

Candidates who complete the PNC education program are prepared to become effective

educators who are committed to continuous growth and educational reform as is evidenced by

the meeting of the PNC institutional standards, Academic Standing and Dismissal Policy, and

Dispositions and Professional Behaviors Evaluation Policy. Candidates develop the appropriate

knowledge, performance and dispositions reflected in our standards and rubrics through

engagement in coursework, service learning projects, field experiences, student organizations,

and clinical practice. They are actively engaged in authentic tasks that require active

participation, critical thinking, collaboration and reflective practice. This prepares them to be

teacher leaders in education so that all students have the opportunity to reach their full potential.

21

References

Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple Intelligences: Seven Ways to Approach Curriculum, Educational

Leadership, November 1994.

Baldwin, S.C., Buchanan, A.M. & Rudisill, M.E. (2007). What teacher candidates learned about

diversity, social justice and themselves from service-learning experiences. Journal of

Teacher Education, 58 (4), 315 – 317.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baumgartner, T., Lipowski, T., & Rush, C. (2003). Increasing reading achievement of primary

and middle school students through differentiated instruction. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Saint Xavier University, Chicago, IL.

Bloom, B.S. (editor). 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Book 1: Cognitive domain.

New York: Longman.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall, Inc.

Borman, G.D., Slavin, R.E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N.A., & Chambers, B.

(2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trials for Success for All.

American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 701-731.

Brighton, C. M. (2002). Straddling the fence: Implementing best practices in an age of

accountability. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 25(3), 30–33.

Brimijoin, K., Marquissee, E., & Tomlinson, C. (2003). Using data to differentiate instruction.

Educational Leadership, 60(5), 70–74.

Bringle & Hatcher, (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of

Higher Education, 67 (2) 221 – 239.

Bruner, J.S., Goodnow, J.J., & Austin, G.A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American

Psychologist, 32 (7), 513 – 531.

Chen, W. F. & Chuang, C. P. (2011). Effect of varied types of collaborative learning strategies

on young children: An experimental study. International Journal of Instructional Media,

38 (4), 351-358.

Chiu, C. H., Yang, H. Y., Liang, T. H., and Chen, H. P. (2010). Elementary students’

participation style in synchronous online communication and collaboration. Behaviour &

Information Technology, 29 (6), 571-586.

22

Clift, R., Houston, W., Pugach, M. (Eds.). (1990). Encouraging reflective practice in education.

New York: Teacher College Press.

Collier, S. T. (1999). Characteristics of reflective thought during the student teaching

experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 50 (1), 173-181.

Cooper, J. E. (2007). Strengthening the case for community-based learning in teacher education.

Journal of Teacher Education, 58 (3), 245 – 256.

Cornish, L., Jenkins, K. (2012). Encouraging teacher development through embedding reflective

practice in assessment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40 (2), 159-170.

Corno, L. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 161-173.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago: Henry Regnery

Dewey, J. (1964). John Dewey on education: Selected writings. (R. D. Archambault, Ed.)

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1965). The relation of theory to practice in education. In M. Borrowman (Ed.),

Teacher education in America: A documentary history. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Dewey, J. (1973). Lectures in China, 1919-1920. (W. Clopton and T. C. Ou, Eds., Trans.)

Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Doherty, A. (1998). The Internet: Destined to become a passive surfing technology? Educational

Technology, September-October, 61- 63.

Echevarría, J., Vogt M., & Short, D. J. (2010). Making content comprehensible for Elementary

English learners: The SIOP Model. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. (2nd ed.) Toronto: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.

Gaff, J. G. (1994). Overcoming barriers: Interdisciplinary studies in disciplinary institutions.

Issues in Integrative Studies, 12, 169-80.

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic

Books.

Gay, G. (1997). Multicultural infusion in teacher education: Foundations and applications.

Peabody Journal of Education, 72 (2), 150-177.

George, P. S. (2005). A rationale for differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Theory

into Practice, 44(3), 185–193.

23

Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation's schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Goodwin, A. J. (1997). Historical and contemporary perspectives on multicultural teacher

education. In J. King, E. Hollins, & W. Hayman (Eds.), Preparing teachers for cultural

diversity, (pp. 5-22). New York: Teachers College Press.

Gore, J. M. (2001). Beyond our differences: A reassembling of what matters in teacher education.

Journal of Teacher Education, 52 (2), 124-35.

Grant, C. A. (1999). Multicultural research: A reflective engagement with race, class, gender,

and sexual orientation. Falmer Press.

Hagevik, R., Aydeniz, M., & Rowell, C. (2012). Using action research in middle level teacher

education to evaluate and deepen reflective practice. Teaching & Teacher Education, 28

(5), 675-684.

Herrell, A. L., & Jordan, M. (2008). 50 strategies for teaching English language learners (4th

edition). Boston: Pearson.

Hopson, M. H., Simms, R. L., & Knezek, G. A. (2002). Using a technology-enriched

environment to improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research on Technology

in Education, 34 (2), 109-19.

Irwin, J. (1987). What is a reflective/analytical teacher? In J. W. Brubacher, C. W. Case, & T. G.

Readgan (1994). Becoming a reflective educator: How to build a culture of inquiry in the

schools (p.24). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, A Sage Publications Company.

ISTE (2007). Retrieved May 23, 2012, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-

students/nets-student-standards-2007.aspx

ISTE (2008). NETS for teachers 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2012, from

http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers/nets-for-teachers-2008.aspx

Jacob, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. The Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Edward Brothers, Inc.

Jacob, H. H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment, K-12. The

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Edwards Brothers, Inc.

Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone. Cooperation, competition,

and individualization (5th

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities.

Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia

24

Lewis, C. M. (2011). Is pair programming more effective than other forms of collaboration for

young students? Computer Science Education, 21 (2), 105-134.

Lonning, R. A, & De Franco, T. C. (1994). Development and implementation of an integrated

mathematics/science preservice elementary methods course. School Science and

Mathematics, 94 (1), 18-25.

Love, R. & McVey, M. (2000). Teachers’ use of the internet. Teachers college record. ID

10538. [On-line]. Available: http://www.tcrecord.org.

Mahar, F. (1991). Gender, reflexivity and teacher education: The Wheaton Program. In B. R.

Tabachnick & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher

education, (pp. 22-34). London: Falmer Press.

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and Personality (2nd

Ed.), New York: Harper & Row Publishers,

Inc.

McGarr, O., Moody, J. (2010). Scaffolding or stifling? The influence of journal requirements on

students’ engagement in reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 11 (5), 579-591.

Meaney, K., Griffin, K., & Bohler, H. (2009). Service-learning: A venue for enhancing pre-

service educators’ knowledge base for teaching. International Journal for the

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 1–17.

Meloni, J. (2009, August 18). Getting started with Google Docs in the classroom. Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved May 23, 2012, from http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Getting-

Started-with-Goodlg/22641/.

Miller, P. C., & Endo, H. (2004). Understanding and meeting the needs of ESL students. Phi

Delta Kappan, 85(10), 786-791.

Miller, P. C., & Endo, H. (2012). Restorative justice: A model for meeting the needs of LGBTIQ

youth. In A. Honigsfeld & A. Cohan (Eds.), Breaking the mold of education for culturally

and linguistically diverse students. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J., & Daly, A. J. (2011). Teaming up: Linking collaboration

networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching & Teacher Education,

28 (2), 251-262.

Newell, W. H. (Eds.). (1998). Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the literature. New York: College

Entrance Examination Board.

Noordhoff, K. & Kleinfeld, J. (1991, April). Preparing teachers for multicultural classrooms: A

case study in rural Alaska. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Education Research Association Chicago.

25

Perkins, D. N. (1991). Educating for insight. Educational Leadership 49 (2): 4-8.

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.

Piaget, J. (1960). The child's conception of the world. London: Routledge

Pigza, J. M. (2010). Fostering student learning and development through reflection. In Jacoby, B.

& Mutascio, P. (Eds.), Looking in, reaching out: A reflective guide for community

service-learning professionals. Boston, MA: Campus Compact.

Ponticell, J. A. (1995). Promoting teacher professionalism through collegiality. Journal of Staff

Development, 16 (3), 13-18.

Prensky, M. (2010) Digital nation [Television series episode]. In Dretzin, R (Executive

Producer), Frontline. New York: PBS.

Purdue University North Central (2011). Re-accreditation self-study report for the Higher

Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.

Reece-Miller, P. C. (2010). An elephant in the classroom: LGBTQ students and the silent

minority. In Fehr, M., & Fehr, D. (Eds.), Teach boldly (pp. 67-76). New York: Peter

Lang.

Richardson, V. (1997). (Eds.). Constructivist teacher education: Building new understandings.

Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.

Root, S. (1994). Service-learning in teacher education: A third rationale. Michigan Journal of

Community Service Learning 1, (1), 94 – 97.

Rubenow, R. C., & Pauls, L. W. (1993). Interdisciplinary collaboration in teacher education

programs. Contemporary Education, 64 (4), 258-260.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

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

Schoenfeld, R. (2004). Service learning guide & journal. Seattle, WA: Guide & Journal

Publications.

Schrader, J., Stuber, L., & Wedwick, L. (2012). Authenticating accelerated reader: Collaborative

goal-setting within the context of AR. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 40 (3), 14-21.

Seely, A. M. (1995). Integrated thematic units: Professional's guide. Westminster, CA: Teacher

Created Materials, Inc.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning (2nd

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

26

Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching triarchically improves student

achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 374–384.

Taylor, N. E., & Valli, L. (1992). Refining the meaning of reflection in education through

program evaluation. Teacher Education Quarterly, 19 (2), 33-47.

Thornburg, D. (2002). The new basics: Education and the future of work in the telematic age.

Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards-Based teaching and differentiation.

Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6–11.

Tomlinson, C. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational

Leadership, 57(1), 12–16.

Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.

Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. (2008). The goals of differentiation. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 26-31.

Trespalacios, J., Chamberlin, B., & Gallagher, R. R. (2011). How youth preferences in video

gaming can inform 21st century education. TechTrends, 55 (6), 49-54.

Utay, C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning: The effects of cooperative learning and cross-age peer

tutoring with word processing on writing skills of students with learning disabilities.

Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 8 (3), 165-85.

Villegas, A. M. (1991). Culturally responsive pedagogy for the 1990s and beyond. Trends and

Issues paper No. 6 Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1934, 1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, & E. Souberman, Eds.)

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Collected works. (R. W. Rieber and A. S. Carton, Eds., and N. Minick,

Trans.). New York: Plenum.

Zeichner, K. M. & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.