School of Education

Lead Teacher Conceptual Framework

Elementary & Secondary Masters of Education Program

Curriculum Design and Delivery

What is curriculum? How is it designed and delivered to students? Does it only pertain to the student’s acquisition of knowledge and how that curriculum is presented or does it relate to the stimulation of a student’s thinking and student’s involvement in the learning process?  

Analyzing and exploring all of the different curriculum design models would be extremely time consuming.  In their 2003 publication, Marsh and Web (2003) described three models. First, Tyler’s 1949 Rational-Linear approach contends that there are four big questions concerning selecting objectives, selecting learning experiences, organizing learning experiences, and evaluating (p. 71). Next, Walker’s Deliberative Approach identifies three basic phases: platform, deliberation, and design.  The process begins with a platform that includes concepts, theories, aims, images, and procedures. It moves to deliberation that identifies facts needed to move to means and ends. After which design is considered. Then, Eisner’s Artistic Approach considers the three basic sources from which content can be drawn: the individual, society, and subject matter.  He believed that along with traditional academic disciplines designers should consider student interest and community needs.

According to Olivia (2005), Daniel and Laurel Tanner updated and expanded Tyler’s Rational-Linear approach to include student assessment. Considering the approach that student learning is the ultimate goal of all instruction, the designed curriculum and the delivery of that curriculum are critical factors and are cyclical.  Olivia stated that curriculum and instruction are separate entities with a continuing circular relationship. Curriculum makes a continuous impact on instruction and, vice versa, instruction also has impact on curriculum. Lead teachers demonstrate an understanding of curriculum design and delivery as encompassing the designed curriculum, the planned curriculum, the delivered curriculum, and the learned curriculum. They maintain vigilance over the outcomes of the delivered curriculum and the learned curriculum to direct and redirect instruction.

Communication

            Alfonso, Firth, & Neville (1981) stated that communication will always be inaccurate because the sender and receiver can never share common perceptions and that communication cannot be perceived as perfect. Lead teachers demonstrate an understanding of communication skills based on verbal, non-verbal, and written communication. They monitor students understanding to clarify misunderstandings that will impact the learned curriculum. These Lead teachers consider the diversity of styles of communication and how they vary among cultures, regions, and nationalities. For example, nonverbal communication plays a big part in communication in the United States but to a less degree in other cultures. Lead teachers are aware of how their background has shaped their thinking and use that information along with an understanding of who they are teaching to drive communication in the classroom related to curriculum and its presentation.

Technology

Lead teachers appreciate the importance of technology as an instructional tool. “When technological tools used in the real world are put in the hands of students, those students can better see themselves as problem solvers and can better and more fully communicate their capacity to solve problems to the larger world community” (November, 2001, p. 47). Through the use of computer technology, lead teachers can use online instruction to supplement classroom activities as well as invite students to use classroom chat rooms and forums to give students the ability to collaborate with each other. These social networks bring students together for the purpose of sharing information and valuing varied opinions. Lead teachers are aware of the many forms of technology and how to use all media to impact student learning.  Curriculum design and delivery must involve student learning focused on how to use technology as well as the student’s ability to convey mastery of materials and skills using technology as a delivery mechanism. 

Lead teachers should also know how to use technology as a management tool in their classrooms.  Managing student data through technology provides the teacher immediate information about student achievement. It becomes an invaluable tool not only related to student grades but also to management of materials and supplies used in the classroom.

Data-driven Assessment

            Lead teachers subscribe to the proposition that they cannot impact student learning unless they have knowledge of what their students already know and do not know. They collect data from the students in their classrooms for the purpose of designing a curriculum that matches those students’ levels of need. Data regarding student learning should come from a variety of measurements—norm-referenced tests, criterion-referenced tests, standards assessment, teacher-assigned grades, and authentic assessments that show the impact of curriculum on students (Bernhardt, 2003). Addressing the levels of need directly and monitoring the progress of students toward achievement is an investigative process requiring collection of more and more data and disaggregation of that data to make sure the design and delivery of that curriculum is serving all populations in the learning community. Lead teachers use data that drive what they teach and how they teach it. 

Collaboration

Lead teachers believe that classroom social interactions, which are important to curriculum development, are provided through shared experience, flexible groupings, interactions with the teacher, and opportunities for children to reflect on their learning (Barbour, Barbour, & Scully, 2008). Teachers design curricula and deliver learning experiences that give opportunities for both individual learning responsibilities and small group learning responsibilities for their students. These learning experiences are designed considering the school community, the student, the family, and community influences so that the quality of learning is enhanced. Lead teachers understand that by creating a comfort zone within the classroom they are creating a platform for learning and reflecting. Sharing in the groups affords students the chance to reflect on the learning of the group and the individual through interactions. Collaborations between students and the teacher allows the teacher to model the concept or skill that the curriculum is designed to deliver while also allowing the students to practice in that same collaborative atmosphere. 

            Teacher-to-teacher collaboration is essential for beginning teachers as well as seasoned veterans. It allows veteran teachers to share experience with new teachers and also beginning teachers to share new ideas with veteran teachers.  Collaboration between teachers for improving instruction benefits students. Delivery styles can be analyzed and improved upon using varying viewpoints.  Cooperation can take many forms including face-to-face meetings, chat rooms, and forums for debating issues and sharing technique.  Whatever form used, lead teachers see the value of alliances and participate in the process of creating those alliances.

Critical Thinking

The Lead Teacher has developed an awareness of the fact that critical thinking involves examining possibilities carefully, fairly, and constructively—focusing your thoughts and actions by organizing and analyzing possibilities, refining and developing the most promising possibilities, ranking or prioritizing options, and then choosing certain options (Treffinger, 2008). They focus on the relationship between the learning of content, the concepts related to that content, and the cognitive functions that encompass critical thinking skills. They are aware that critical thinking is a learned behavior and that strong questioning skill on the part of the teacher fosters critical thinking. The practitioner designs curricula and delivers it methodically to allow their students to label, classify, and compare the elements of content to find the commonalities and the differences for the purpose of genuine understanding. The Lead teacher then provides opportunities for students to engage in activities that promote manipulation of information into new forms and big ideas. Each time students engage in activities that are designed into the curriculum to reinforcement the use of critical thinking skills the students’ cognitive abilities to use those skills improve. 

Change Agency

According to Harrison and Killion (2007), lead teachers can be catalysts for change, visionaries who are “never content with the status quo but rather always looking for a better way” (Larner, 2004, p. 32). Teachers who take on the catalyst role feel secure in their own work and have a strong commitment to continual improvement.  Dozier (2007) stated that because teachers know firsthand what is needed to improve student learning, promoting and supporting teacher leadership are crucial to the success of any education reform effort. But lead teachers need specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be successful change agents.

How do lead teachers bring about change? Lead teachers know that change is a process not an event, requiring time, energy, and resources to support it (Marsh & Wells, 2003).  Lead teachers become involved. They move from the isolation of the classroom into leadership roles to help bring about improved curriculum design and delivery (Dozier, 2007). They join with other lead teachers and other stakeholders to first become informed, second develop data to support change, and third use those data to bring about the change. This occurs while they also consider timing and the stakeholders who will support change and those for whom change will be difficult.  

 Research-Based Practices

            The term “best-practice” refers to solid, reputable, state-of-the-art research-based practices used in the classroom for the benefit of student learning (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005).  The lead teacher understands and uses research-based best practices to construct a curriculum that facilitates instruction and delivers that curriculum to effectively present the “big idea” to students.  Students are not kept in the dark about what they are going to learn or why it is important.  Formative assessments are used to evaluate student knowledge related to the “big idea” as well as levels of need in background information.  Formative assessment should include formal and informal methods that allow the students as well as the teacher see what levels of understanding exist.  These methods are most effective if they are scored in a descriptive or narrative way, not scored numerically. 

Some effective methods have been identified as ungraded quizzes, oral questioning, teacher observations, draft work, think-alouds, student-constructed concept maps, learning logs, and portfolio reviews (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005).  These assessments provide insight into the thinking and learning of students and should be completed for the purpose of driving further instruction.  Students should also be involved in some type of self-assessments and goal setting.  These efforts involve students in their own learning and help students take ownership.  Lead teachers assess frequently to make sure students are moving in the direction of the “big idea.”   If these assessments indicate that students are not grasping the idea, teachers can immediately make corrections to redirect student learning.

References

Barbour, C., Barbour, N. H., & Scully, P. A. (2008). Families, schools, and communities:

            Building partnerships for educating children. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill

            Prentice Hall.

Benson, B. P. (2003). How to meet standards, motivate students, and still enjoy teaching!

            Four practices that improve student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Bernhardt, V. L. (2003). No schools left behind. Educational Leadership, 60 (5), 26-30.

Dozier, T. K. (2007). Turning good teachers into great leaders. Educational Leadership, 65 (1), 54-59.

Harrison, C., & Killion, J. (2007). Ten roles for teacher leaders. Educational Leadership,

            65 (1), 74-77.

Marsh, C. J., & Willis, G. (2003). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. Upper

            Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. 

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works.

            Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McTighe, J., & O’Connor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective learning.  Educational

            Leadership, 63(3), 10-17.

McTighe, J., & Thomas, R. S. (2003). Backward design for forward action. Educational

            Leadership, 60(5), 52-55.

November, A. (2001). Empowering students with technology. Glenview, IL: Pearson Skylight.

Oliva, P. F. (2005). Developing the curriculum.  Boston: Pearson Allyn Bacon.

Price, H. B., (2008). Mobilizing the community to help students succeed. Alexandria, VA:

            Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.

            Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

            Merrill Prentice Hall.

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice: Today’s standards for teaching

            & learning in America’s schools. Portsmith, NH: Heinemann.

Lead Teacher Conceptual Framework

Elementary & Secondary Masters of Education Program

Educational Equity

Equity can be defined as a high-quality education for all students. By federal mandate, all children are entitled to a free and appropriate public education, so an understanding of the importance of educational equity and its relationship to success in schools is essential for Lead Teachers. Disparities in the educational experience have been well documented (Cranton, 2006; Cummins, Brown, & Sayers, 2007; Kozol, 2005).  Efforts to close the achievement gap have been, at best, only partially successful.

Lead teachers treat all students equitably because they understand how individual differences relate to students’ abilities to achieve their potential. They create a classroom culture and provide differentiated instruction that accommodates those differences.  Similarly, they demonstrate an appreciation of cultural, racial, ability, gender, and economic differences in their social interactions with students, their families, and other educational community members and expect the same from their students. As a result of accepting the responsibility to create safe, equitable, and inviting learning environments, they apply multicultural, invitational, transformative, and other relevant theory and research to their practice (Banks & Banks, 2006; Cranton, 2006; Irvine, 2001; Novak, 1994; Purkey & Strahan, 1995; Wong & Wong, 1991).

Communication

Lead teachers understand and respect communication patterns, preferences, and choices of different cultural groups, and encourage communication in ways most comfortable for students and families. They work to overcome bias in all forms of communication, such as language, attitudes, and interactions. They avoid bias in language usage, such as exclusively using masculine pronouns and titles. They are careful not to identify people by race/ethnic group or disability unless it is relevant and avoid the use of terms such as non-White and culturally-deprived. They minimize bias in language by being aware of their own language use in class, stay informed about nonbiased alternative language, and use the classroom as a safe place to educate students about biased language (NWREL, 2001). They use person-first language when referring to students with disabilities (e.g., a “student with LD” instead of an “LD student”).

Similarly, Lead teachers pay attention to their attitudes and the attitudes of their students. Prejudice and bias have no place in an equitable classroom, and can lead to diminished student performance. More subtle attitudes, such as holding lower expectation for some groups of students, or believing boys are better at computers, can also hinder students’ academic success (Johnson, 2005). They make an effort to avoid bias in dealing with students, examine and reflect on their behavior, and are aware of stereotypes and other biased attitudes and how they are formed. They serve as role models for students and do not allow students biases to remain unchallenged.

Lead teachers are aware with how they interact with students as interactions influence students’ self esteem and success. They demonstrate high expectations for all students and communicate their expectations regularly. Lead teachers call on all students to give them an opportunity to look good in front of their peers, not to embarrass them. The teacher allows more time for less confident students to raise their hands and respond. Lead Teachers apply discipline equitably and use praise and reinforcement to teach appropriate behavior to all students (NWREL, 2001).

Technology

Lead teachers realize all students should have equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of the educational process. They understand the digital divide, know which students have or do not have access to computers, provide alternatives to home computers, and work with their school and community to ensure Internet and computer access before and after school in such settings as Boys and Girls Clubs, libraries, and school computer labs.

Lead teachers are computer proficient and are aware of technology issues related to educational equity. They are aware of opportunities and issues such as online classes, universal design, assistive technology, online tutoring sites, and electronic home school communications (Freiberg & Driscoll, 2005). Virtual high schools allow students to take advanced classes and electives not offered in their home schools, and learn content beyond the confines of classrooms, thus lessening the divide between those with access to Honors, AP, and other advanced curriculum and those without. Universal design and assistive technology assure all students have access to the rich resources of the Internet. They use the communication strengths of technology to help students learn, involve families and communities in the learning process, and broaden the horizons of their students.

Lead teachers understand how technology can enable students to interact with others who are geographically at a distance and may be diverse in terms of race, religion, beliefs, culture, life-style, economics, class, and language. Information and computer literacy are required 21^st century skills, and they take responsibility for ensuring their students master these skills. They give extra encouragement in learning and using technology to students who may be less confident, such as females or lower income students. Computers are used for instruction and enrichment, not merely remediation (Cummins, Brown & Sayers, 2007). 

Data-driven Assessment

Lead teachers are knowledgeable about the use of standardized tests and can interpret and utilize test results in their classrooms and schools.  They disaggregate school and classroom data, and use data to inform school improvement efforts, identify curricular and instruction changes, and guide equitable resource allocation (NWREL, 2001).

Ensuring both equity and excellence in school settings requires the use of assessment that accounts for variances in student learning styles and cultural backgrounds and is effectively aligned with school curricula, instruction, and systemic improvement goals. Traditional, uniform measures of assessment alone, such as "high stakes" standardized tests, are not sufficient to gage the full breadth of students' skills or to use as a basis for formative, educational decisions. Depending solely on these indicators often presents an inaccurate reflection of student performance due to inherent bias in test questions or to the unintended measurement of certain skills (e.g., a math test designed so that success depends not only on the skills the school intends to measure, but also on other skills, such as language proficiency) (NWREL, 2001).

Lead teachers use multiple assessment strategies including performance-based measures such as portfolios, teacher observation, oral assessment, student self-assessment, and work sampling as well as data from standardized tests (American Educational Research Association, 1999; Lehman, 2000; NWREL, 2001).

Lead teachers use assessment outcomes to achieve equity and excellence in their schools. In particular, they take care to ensure all assessments are developed to measure the skills intended and to guard against outcomes reflecting differences in student experiences, cultural values, language abilities, or the quality of education received, and ensure appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities and students who may be limited in their level of English proficiency (NWREL, 2001).  Assessment data is used only for its intended purposes and confidentially is maintained.

Collaboration

Lead teachers recognize that “It takes a Village to Raise a Child” and achieving educational equity will take the combined efforts of educators, parents, communities, local, state and federal agencies, and higher education personnel, among others. Working together allows all to understand varying needs and views and work toward narrowing the achievement gap, funding schools equitably, and ensuring every child a quality education (Williams & Pritchard, 2006).

The federal mandate that all children are entitled to a free and appropriate education occurred largely from the tireless efforts of parents and advocacy groups in the courts and legislatures of this country. A working knowledge of educational policy-making coupled with knowledge of equity legislation, such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, and the "No Child Left Behind" legislation of 2002 are critical to continued progress in this area (Spring, 2007).

Lead teachers recognize their responsibility to promote diversity and collaboration not only in their classrooms but in their schools and communities. Some ways to accomplish this are by including community cultures in the classroom to enrich the learning experiences (e.g., cultural, religious, and national holidays, weddings, graduations, bar mitzvahs, Quinceañera, first rice celebrations, birthdays, wakes, the arts).  Lead teachers involve their classes in discussions and appreciation of these events and ask students whether they see similarities to their own cultures  (NWREL, 2001).

By respecting and celebrating diversity, all students have a broadened appreciation of culture and experience the positive side of diversity. Students also experience an affirmation of their own cultures and can take pride in sharing with the rest of the class. When students from various culture groups interact regularly, and particularly when they come together as equals, work toward a common goal, and see themselves as members of the same team, they are more likely to accept one another’s differences – and perhaps even value them (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1999; Oskamp, 2000).

Within their classrooms, teachers ensure when students collaborate, groups are diverse and all group members have a chance to take on all roles. Within their schools, teachers make an effort to collaborate with diverse teachers to continually learn about other cultures. Teachers recognize their classrooms are part of a larger community and strive to understand all diverse aspects of their local communities.

Critical Thinking

Lead teachers look for bias in textbooks, curriculum media, institutions, and school-wide practices, such as tracking. They formally and critically reflect on and inquire into the pedagogical, ethical, political, social, and economic dimensions of education.  Formal reflection includes interpreting and judging the findings of current educational research to meet the needs of instructional or policy changes.

Textbooks, audiovisual, and other materials should be reviewed to minimize bias in their content, graphics, pictures, and language. Examples of subtle and not-so-subtle bias in materials range from science textbooks illustrated with only white male researchers to absent or minimal discussion of the historical contributions of some cultural groups or women of all races (McCormack, 1994; NWREL, 2001). Curriculum, both expressed and hidden, often conveys unintended messages, such as racial lessons (Lewis, 2007). Lead teachers include contributions from non-European sources to provide a balanced study of world cultures and include the past and present experiences of people of color and women in studies of current events, economics, government, history, social studies, and science (NWREL, 2001). 

Lead teachers recognize the effects the media has on our understanding of minorities, women, people with disabilities, homosexuals, and many other groups. The media is often creates and perpetuates stereotypes and a superficial, distorted understanding of people. Lead teachers recognize their responsibility to identify and critically examine these misconceptions and stereotypes in themselves and their students. They make conscious efforts to correct students misunderstandings based on incomplete or inaccurate knowledge of others.

Change Agency

Teachers are leaders and must be prepared to take on the challenges that come with leadership. One role, in relation to equity, is teacher as change agent. Here, Lead teachers are expected to apply their knowledge of equity legislation and policymaking as a tool to reduce the negative influences of class, race, gender, and ability on students’ success in school. They are equipped to partner with parents, community members and others to improve the schooling experience for all children, addressing issues like access, fair funding, technology, facilities, teacher quality, curriculum, testing, grading, and promotion (Darling-Hammond, Wise, & Klein, 1995; Novak, 1994). Teachers need to address the achievement gap, and act as change agents in their communities, classrooms, schools, districts, and at the state and national levels.

Lead teachers understand the social consequences of capitalism and materialism and are able to apply these understandings to education. They understand the strength of the media in shaping understandings and imparting values. They understand the importance of engaging in critical thinking and teaching their students to use critical thinking in their approaches to learning. Learning from their experiences, they can work successfully with students who are different (McLain, 2002).

Ultimately, Lead teachers recognize the need to strive for more equitable teaching for all students. When educators demonstrate a willingness to accept responsibility for their role in maintaining school structures that foster equality, and when local discussions of these issues move beyond a search for blame to a search for concrete solutions, the possibility for genuine progress in raising student achievement can be significantly increased (Noguera, 2001).

Research-based Practice

Some theorists believe that practice that is derived from varying sources and perspectives is more likely to meet the needs of a diverse population and make it more culturally relevant (Banks & Banks, 2006; Irvine, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1994).  Lead teachers must draw on geographical, historical, and/or sociological perspectives and incorporate demographic data from reliable sources in their planning and assessment to better meet the needs of all students.

Lead teachers apply research about culturally responsive teaching and how students learn differently. They use of instructional materials that promote positive images of diverse groups (NWREL, 2001). Whenever possible, they make connections between subject matter and the lives of students by providing culturally meaningful examples and analogies to help students make the link between their prior experiences and new knowledge (NWREL, 2001). 

Lead teachers know and apply research in learning and teaching styles. Learning styles may be related to culture (Delpit, 1995; Grant, 1999).  For example, African American children often prefer a more social learning style, talking and interacting in small groups whereas Asian and Native people often learn by listening to others, tend to conceal individual knowledge, and may not feel comfortable speaking out in class (Delpit; Gay, 2000). Lead teachers utilize a variety of teaching styles to meet individual student needs (e.g., hands-on learning, small-group discussion, problem solving).

References

American Educational Research Association. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing.  Washington, D.C (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED463327). 

Banks, J., & Banks C. (2006).  Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives.6^th ed.  New York:  John Wiley & Sons.

Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transforative learning: A guide for educators of adults, 2^nd ed. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Cummins, J., Brown, K., & Sayers, D. (2007). Literacy, technology, and diversity: Teaching for success in changing times. Boston: Pearson.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A., & Klein, S. (1995).  A license to teach:  Building a profession for 21st century schools.  Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

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

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1999). Reducing prejudice: Combating intergroup biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 101-105.

Freiberg, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Universal teaching strategies. 4^th Ed. Pearson, Boston.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research & practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Grant, C. (Ed.). (1999). Multicultural research: A reflective engagement with race, class, gender and sexual orientation. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Irvine, J. J. (2001).  Caring, competent teachers in complex classrooms.  AACTE.

Johnson, A. (2005). The gender knot unraveling our patriarchal legacy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York: Random House.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994).  The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Lehman, N.  (2000).  The big test:  The secret history of the American meritocracy. New York: Ferrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Lewis, A. (2007). Race in the schoolyard:  Negotiating the color line in classrooms and communities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

McCormack, T. M. (1994). Creating the nonsexist classroom: A multicultural approach. New York: Teachers College Press.

McLain, B. (2002). Strategies to engage students in learning: Results of a statewide survey of public high schools in Washington State. Paper contributed to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, City

Noguera, P. A. (2001). Racial politics and the elusive quest for excellence and equity in education. Education and Urban Society, 18, page numbers.

Novak, J. (1994).  Democratic teacher education:  Programs, processes, problems and prospects.  SUNY.

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL). (2001). Key components of educational equity. Retrieved on September 10, 2009 from http://www.NWREL.org/cnorse/booklets/training/KeyComponents.html.

Oskamp, S. (2000). Reducing prejudice and discrimination (Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Purkey, W., &  Strahan, D. (1995). School transformation through Invitational Education.  Research in Schools, volume, 1-6.

Spring, J. (2007). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality, 5^th ed. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Williams, R., & Pritchard, C. (2006). Breaking the cycle of educational alienation: A multiprofessional approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wong, H., & Wong, R. (1991).  The first days of school:  How to be an effective teacher.  Wong Publications.

Lead Teacher Conceptual Framework

Elementary & Secondary Masters of Education Program

Leadership

Public education doesn’t afford us the luxury of selecting our students.  To achieve academic goals, instructional leadership is primary and most crucial.  Both the first wave of effective schools research (Edmonds, 1979) and the second wave of effective schools research (Levine & Lezottte, 1990) found strong leadership to be present in effective schools.  Often when we refer to instructional leadership we think of the educational leader, but teachers can and do play a major role in providing instructional leadership.

Leadership has been defined in many ways.  Burns (1978) defined it as inducing followers to act for goals that represent the values and the motivations – the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations – of both leader and followers.  Hersey and Blanchard (1988) described it as influencing the activities of an individual or a group in efforts toward goal achievement in a given situation.  Terry (1960) summed it up as influencing people to strive willingly for group objectives.  Kawjewski, Martin, and Walden (1983) saw leadership as encompassing all of the above and even more.  Glickman et al. (2005) stated that education is a collective rather than an individual enterprise for successful schools.  In team building, lead teachers have the ability to positively influence others towards success-seeking strategies.

Communication

            Most principals, teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents have the best intentions for students in mind.  What then prevents schools from creating shared vision and positive cultures?  The answer in part is communication.  Instructional leaders, in order to build “professional togetherness” (Glickman, et al., 2005), understand the importance of and are proficient in the skills associated with communication.  They keep in mind a number of considerations related to communication.  They keep in mind their audiences; they chose the right channels (formal and informal) of communications; and they reflect on the effect of their communication.  They understand the levels of communication and they know when to use one-way versus two-way communication.  There is compelling evidence that communication skills developed and effectively used by instructional leaders are key variables in determining effective practices (Kowalski, 2003).

Technology

Computers and other modern technologies have expanded and changed instructional methods.  They have served to redefine effective practices in both teaching and administration (Kowalski, 2003). With the development of technology and the demands for reform, a school either moves ahead or falls behind.  Which occurs is determined by the quality of educational leaders and lead teachers. 

Modern technologies allow educators to access and use large quantities of information, thus allowing them to identify and solve problems more quickly and effectively.  They give educators assess to best practices and enable those in leadership to become more empowered to be effective change agents.   Effectiveness in improving instruction and increasing student achievement requires lead teachers who are informed and competent in using technology.

Data-driven Assessment

            Before state mandated testing, Whitaker  (2003) noted that the textbook for many was the curriculum. Mandated tests caused educators to focus on state standards. As a result, for many schools the state standards have become the curriculum.  Whitaker warns us to never allow state standards to become the center of the school because if the standards change, then we have lost the core of our school.  However, standardized tests and state standards can provide a powerful foundation for improving instruction and increasing student learning. Keeping testing in the proper perspective, the lead teacher understands the real purpose of testing and uses data to identify the school’s areas of academic weakness and pinpoint those students who score low in a subject area. 

            Eby (1998) suggested that the teacher’s role in diagnosing students’ need is quite similar to the role of the physician in diagnosing disease. Doctors find that laboratory tests provide them with valuable information about the patient. Likewise lead teachers understand that achievement tests can provide them with valuable data about their students.  However, effective, reflective lead teachers interpret the information gained on standardized achievement with great caution and use the scores as only one contributor to the diagnosis of a student’s needs.  They take a holistic view of the student.  Utilizing data derived from testing, they prepare a plan of action, a plan of remediation for low achieving students.  Additionally, they identify those who have mastered the basic skills in one or more subjects so that they can provide those students with more challenging learning experiences.

Collaboration

            In recent years two-way communications, collaboration, school-community relations and overall school public relations have increased in importance.  Holliday (1997) defined school and public or community relations as a program established on all levels of a school corporation to improve and maintain optimal levels of student achievement, and to build and maintain public support.  The effective lead teacher understands the goals of a school community-relations program, and communicates and collaborates with parents and the community.

            Lead teachers are active and visible in the community and communicate with the overall community.  They reach out to different business, religious, political, and service entities.  Relationships are established and nurtured with community leaders.  They communicate the vision and goals of the school and enlist all stakeholders to play a role in building and sustaining a learning community focused on academic excellence.

Critical Thinking

            State tests are increasingly emphasizing thinking and problem solving skills (Hummel & Huitt, 1994). There are various labels for these new goals – creative thinking, reasoning, critical thinking, infusion, metacognition, and transfer, among others.  Critical thinking is probably the most current label for what many call analytical reasoning, synthesis, problem-solving, or higher mental processes (Scriven & Paul, 1992).

Although there has long been a focus on higher order thinking skills (HOTS), few schools have understood the overt correlation of HOTS to their students’ performance on state standardized tests.  Hummel and Huitt (1994) noted that we assumed that critical thinking would automatically develop as we taught specific disciplines.  Most teachers do not know how to harness intelligence to master the increasingly complex curricula with which students are challenged.  It is a simple but sad fact that too many public school districts in the United States have been stuck in the doldrums for many years and lack the understanding and power to make the drastic changes necessary to improve student performance.

Lead teachers understand that in order to effectively prepare students to think, more so than to prepare them to master a standardized state test, they must improve student’s critical thinking skills.  They know that we teach students to think by having them think.  Lead teachers use questioning strategies to probe students’ minds. They are competent in using higher-level questions. They can successfully convert a lower level question to a higher-level one.

In addition, lead teachers think critically themselves in order to make decisions.  They reflect on their decisions, justify their choices, and defend their actions based on what is good for the student.

Change Agency

            Lunenberg and Ornstein (2000) noted that most people think that it is easier to keep things the way they are.  They add that frequently teachers view change as adding more work to an already overloaded schedule. Friedenberg (1965) stated that people who go into teaching tend to be conformist in nature, not innovative, and they have succeeded in the school system, as it has existed. Lunenberg and Ornstein suggested the uncertainty of the future, the rapidity of change, and the lack of financial support or additional time as additional reasons why people resist change. Many people believe that teachers are professional and can be trusted to commit themselves to the learning needs of children despite their discomfort with change (Sowell, 1987).  When teachers do not respond to the “ideal,” it is thought to be because of factors they don’t control. Yet, Fullan (1993) noted a successful change agent knows how people react to change and how to encourage them to be receptive to change.

            Lead teachers are aware and understand the need to change sometimes. They are aware and understand some of the forces that encourage or obstruct change (Fullan, 1993).  As lead teachers, they know the need to develop a climate for change.  They are knowledgeable and trustworthy so other teachers feel comfortable in following them.  They understand and utilize the guideline for change.  They establish a need for change and don’t move others too fast.

Research-based Practices

            Hunter (1984) defined teaching as the constant stream of professional decisions that affects the probability of learning: learning activities, classroom management, planning, curriculum deliberation, and content.  Shavelson (1983) reviewed the research on teacher decision-making and noted that although teachers make about 10 interactive decisions per hour, they tend to consider few alternatives.  These decisions, it is thought, would be purposeful if they were based on best practices.

            The effective lead teacher seeks teaching techniques verified by effective-teaching research, supported by learning theory, tested by teachers, and essential to every teacher’s practice (Wilen, Ishler, Hutchinson, & Kindsvatter, 2000).  The lead teacher explores the literature to accumulate a repertoire of methods that might be employed effectively to achieve lesson objectives and unit goals.  They are constantly seeking teaching strategies that will promote learning and achievement. Moreover, lead teachers chose the methods and strategies that best fit their students and put them into practice within their classrooms.

References

Burns, J. M. (1978).  Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Eby, J. W.  (1998). Reflective planning, teaching and evaluation. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor.  Educational Leadership, 37 (1), 15-24.

Friedenberg, E. A. (1965). Coming of age in America. New York: Random House.

Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational Leadership, 50, 12-17.

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2005). The basic guide to supervision and instructional leadership.  Boston: Pearson.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988).  Management of organizational behavior. 

            Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Holliday, A. E. (1997, January). 106 ways to better school-community relations. Education Digest, 62 (5), 15-20.

Hummel, J. H., & Huitt, W. (1994, February).  What you measure is what you get.  ASCD Newsletter: The Reporter, 10-11.

Hunter, M. (1984). Knowing, teaching and supervision. IN P. Hosford (Ed.) Using what we know about teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kowalski, T. J.  (2003). Contemporary school administration: An introduction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.    

Krajewski, R. J., Martin, J. S., & Walden, J. C.  (1983). The elementary school principalship. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Levine, D. V., & Lezotte, W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research practices. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development.

Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2000). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (3^rd ed.). Belmont CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Shavelson, R. J. (1983). Review of research on teachers’ pedagogical judgments, plans, and decisions.  Elementary School Journal. New York: Random House.

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1992, November). Critical thinking defined.  Handout given at the Critical Thinking Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Terry, G. R. (1960).  Principles of management. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Whitaker, T. (2003). What great principals do differently.  Larchmont, N. Y: Eye on Education.

Wilen, W., Ishler, M., Hutchinson, J.,  & Kindsvatter, R.  (2000). Dynamics of effective teaching. New York: Longman.

Lead Teacher Conceptual Framework

Elementary & Secondary Masters of Education Program

Teacher Effectiveness

Teacher effectiveness may be defined as achieving remarkable success in helping their students learn in ways that make a sustained, substantial, and positive influence on how those students think, act, and feel. Lead teachers are effective teachers who produce strong instruction that enables a wide range of students to learn. Such instruction meets the demands of the discipline, the goals of instruction, and the needs of students in a particular context (Darling-Hammond, 2000). 

Research on teacher effectiveness, based on teacher ratings and student achievement gains, has found the following qualities important in lead teachers: strong general intelligence and verbal ability that help teachers organize and explain ideas, as well as to observe and think diagnostically; strong content knowledge that relates to what is to be taught; knowledge of how to teach others in that area (content pedagogy), in particular how to use hands-on learning techniques (e.g., lab work in science, manipulatives in mathematics) and how to develop higher-order thinking skills. Lead teachers also possess an understanding of learners and their learning  and development– including how to assess and scaffold learning, how to support students who have learning differences or difficulties. Although less directly studied, most educators would include in this list a set of dispositions to support learning for all students, to teach in a fair and unbiased manner, to be willing and able to adapt instruction to help students succeed, to strive to continue to learn and improve, and to be willing and able to collaborate with other professionals and parents in the service of individual students and the school as a whole (Darling-Hammond, 2000).

Communication

Effective communication involves verbal ability that helps teachers organize and explain ideas, observe, and think diagnostically. Lead teachers demonstrate their communication skills through the following:

• Teaming and Collaboration: Cooperative interaction between two or more individuals working together to solve problems, create novel products, or learn and master content.
• Interpersonal Skills: The ability to read and manage the emotions, motivations, and behavior of oneself and others during social interactions or in a social-interactive context.
• Personal Responsibility:Depth and currency of knowledge about legal and ethical issues combined with one's ability to apply this knowledge to achieve balance, integrity, and quality of life as a citizen, a family and community member, a learner, and a worker.
• Interactive Communication: The generation of meaning through exchanges using a range of contemporary tools, transmissions, and processes (Kemp, 1999).

Technology

Teacher effectiveness includes knowledge of technology to access, evaluate, and process information efficiently and effectively. Technology is used effectively and appropriately to interact electronically with students, colleagues, parents, the community, and other professionals. Technology is used to communicate information in a variety of formats. Lead teachers have a keen understanding of the legal, social, and ethical issues related to technology use. They use technology to analyze problems and develop data-driven solutions for instructional and school improvement. They design, implement, and assess learning experiences that incorporate use of technology in curriculum-related instructional activities to support understanding, inquiry, problem-solving, communication, or collaboration.

Teacher effectiveness recognizes that beyond all of the above, effective technology in the classroom is focused on teaching and learning first, and technology second. Technology development and use includes not only the actual instructional event, but the development of an implementation plan, the development of an assessment plan, and the completion of both to evaluate the impact of its use. Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) considered the research findings of good practice in innovative technology-enhanced and technology-delivered education. They determined that there were at least seven factors that were critical in manifesting effective good practice of technology use:

  1. Encouraged contacts between students and faculty, especially those students who were unwilling to speak out in face-to-face classroom settings.

  2. Developed reciprocity and cooperation among students allowing for the benefits of peer learning.

  3. Used active learning techniques that made students active learners.

  4. Gave prompt feedback.

  5. Emphasized time on task.

  6. Communicated high expectations.

  7. Respected diverse talents and ways of learning. (p. 144–145)

Data-Driven Assessment

Lead teachers are committed to making data-driven decisions about students and instruction. Data-driven decision-making uses student assessment data and relevant background information to inform decisions related to planning and implementing instructional strategies at the district, school, classroom, and individual student levels.  “Data literacy” means that a person possesses a basic understanding of how data can be used to inform instruction. Research shows that if instructional plans at the state, county, district, school, classroom, and individual student levels are based on assessment information relevant to the desired learning outcomes for students, the probability is increased that they will attain the desired learning outcomes (DuFour & Eaker, 2005). Lead teachers understand that assessment of student performance is integral in the planning, implementation, assessment, and revision of instruction.  Data literacy also implies that the educator must be able to determine whether or not an assessment is a valid and reliable measure of what is being taught and to know what types of assessments are appropriate for district level versus classroom or individual student level planning. What is commonly referred to as a “cycle of inquiry” illustrates the basic steps in the application of data to inform instructional decision-making: (1) conduct assessments, (2) obtain relevant data, (3) analyze data, (4) determine conclusions, (5) plan instruction, and (6) implement instruction (Johnson & McLeod, 2004). In order for data to influence instructional practice, effective teachers continuously monitor assessment data and other information relevant to student academic performance, and translate that information into the delivery of curriculum and instruction. The design and re-design of instruction based on student assessment data is time consuming and tedious; however, recent developments in technology applications make this task less burdensome.  Effective teaching involves making basic considerations for preparing or revising instructional units and practice based on data-driven assessment:

• Instructional unit objectives are linked to the state content standards
• Technology-based and other supplements are linked to the adopted text
• Assessments are embedded into the instructional resources linked to the instructional unit objectives
• Results of available state assessments are considered and linked to local assessments and are valid in accurately assessing what students learn in relation to the standards
• Periodic assessment of student performance is provided, recorded and linked back to the unit objectives
• Commitment is to implementing units of instruction and administering unit-prescribed assessments as scheduled
• Teachers collaborate on students’ progress and compare notes on using assessments in planning instruction
• Student data and background information are used to inform instructional planning

Collaboration

Friend and Cook's (1992) definition of collaboration is intentionally general and takes this into account: "interpersonal collaboration is a style of direct interaction between at least two co-equal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal" (p. 5).  Collaboration is based on a belief in the value of shared decision making, trust, and respect among participants. Lead teachers are more experienced with collaboration, and their relationships are characterized by the trust and respect that grow within successful collaborative relationships.

Teachers who employ cooperative learning methods with their students promote learning because these collaborative experiences engage students in an interactive approach to processing information, resulting in greater retention of subject matter, improved attitudes toward learning and enhanced interpersonal relations among group members (McTighe, 2002).

Friend and Cook (1992) clarified their definition by detailing several characteristics. Teacher collaboration is voluntary. They must make a personal choice to work collaboratively in such situations. It is based on parity. Teachers who collaborate must believe that all individuals' contributions are valued equally. It requires a shared goal. Teachers collaborate only when they share a goal. It includes shared responsibility for key decisions. Although teachers may divide their labor in collaborative activities, each one is an equal partner in making the fundamental decisions they are undertaking.  It includes shared accountability for outcomes. That is, if teachers share key decisions, they must also share accountability for the results of their decisions, positive or negative. Lastly, teacher collaboration is based on shared resources. Each teacher participating in a collaborative effort contributes some type of resource.

Many trends in schools are encouraging teacher collaboration. For example, peer coaching (Joyce & Showers, 1988) and interdisciplinary curriculum development are premised on teachers' collaborative relationships, as are current trends in the design and delivery of professional development programs (Barth, 1992). Many aspects of currently recommended school reforms call for greater collaboration among lead teachers (Goodlad, 1984). The trend toward school-based decision-making is also consonant with the recognition that collaboration is becoming an essential ingredient in successful schools. Smith and Scott (1990) have asserted that the collaborative school is easier to describe than define. Such a school, they suggest, is a composite of beliefs and practices characterized by the following elements:

1. The conviction that instruction is most effective in a school environment characterized by collegiality and continuous improvement.
2. The belief that teachers are professionals who should be given the responsibility for the instructional process and be held accountable for its outcomes.
3. The use of a wide range of practices and structures that enable administrators and teachers to work together on school improvement.
4. Teachers’ decisions about school goals and the means for achieving them (p. 2).

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a common objective of various disciplines and a goal to which all effective teachers ascribe. Critical thinking, as defined by Richard Paul (1995), is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. Effective teaching involves modeling an attitude or disposition of open-mindedness, skepticism, fair-mindedness, and tentativeness when presenting concepts, ideas, theories, procedures, and directions. Lead teachers model a) intellectual humility: a willingness to admit error, change beliefs when warranted, or suspend judgment, b) confidence in reason: a willingness to go wherever the evidence leads, c) intellectual curiosity: a love of exploring new topics, learning new things, gaining knowledge, and d) intellectual independence: a willingness to examine honestly and fairly the positions of those you disagree with, and a willingness to question authority, tradition, and majority opinion.

Lead teachers recognize that the critical thinking attitude is unnatural and must be cultivated. To understand this requires a few insights into how learners acquire beliefs and make decisions. Critical thinking is a standard of intellectual excellence required for full participation in the social, economic, and political life of our society. Teachers who teach creative problem-solving strategies improve learning by providing students with general-purpose problem-solving tools appropriate for a variety of situations (McTighe, 2002). Teachers who establish classrooms characterized by an open, democratic climate promote learning because such a classroom climate correlates significantly with the development of critical and creative thinking abilities.

Lead teachers assume the responsibility of shaping discussions and establishing the classroom culture to support them. It is unlikely that students will succeed in substantive, reflective exchanges if they have not learned to carry on similar conversations elsewhere. Given the diversity of the student body in public institutions, it is insufficient to provide students with the means to communicate and not support them with the skillful and active participation of faculty or facilitators. Students need coaching and practice in how to carry on discussions. Initially, teacher effectiveness involves stepping in and supporting disciplined discussions by:

• Maintaining a focused discussion,
• Keeping the discussion intellectually responsible,
• Stimulating the discussion by asking probing questions that hold students accountable for their thinking,
• Encouraging full participation, and
• Periodically summarizing what has or needs to be done.

In monitoring discussions or group work, lead teachers engage in a line of questioning that will continue to drive an idea. Discussion formats that help promote critical thinking and task analysis include Socratic seminars, small group discussions, buzz groups, debating teams, jigsaw groups, and mock trials.

Change Agency

A change agent is someone whose behavior results in social, cultural or behavioral change (Havelock & Zlotolow, 1995). Current research and thinking suggests that we must travel beyond the formal teacher leader roles of coordinator, grade level leaders, etc., that are grounded in differential leadership theory. We must examine democratic leadership models that empower every teacher to exercise leadership, even in an informal capacity, within the school setting. Every teacher must contribute to classroom research and creative teaching strategies if all pupils are to succeed. Every teacher must become a change agent if true reform is to be achieved.

To meet the goals of our educational programs, students must grow and change in their knowledge, skills, and attitudes. To design effective programs we need to understand how to promote this change. A change process based on Rokeach's model of the belief system (Ball-Rokeach, 1984) is recommended. To create an educational system that will promote the desired change, we need well-defined educational objectives and educational activities that will engage students in the learning process. Lead teachers are willing to change themselves and to develop a support system to insure that the changes they make will be effective and lasting. This support systems consists of gaining administrative support, listening and observing before suggesting changes, allowing others to make mistakes, accepting that no one can do it alone, establishing working relationships, and selecting your battles.

Research-Based Practices

What over the years have we learned about instructional practices and their success rate for helping students learn? Examining 50 years of research, Angelo (1993) identified some key principles for effective teaching. Lead teachers:

• Actively engage students in learning. Students teach other students, collaborate, hands-on work, and are motivated by the teacher.
• Make it clear what is to be learned and why it is important for students to know the material.
• Set high, but realistic goals.
• Meaningfully connect new information with prior knowledge.
• Assess the success of the lesson and then re-teach, if necessary.
• Organize subject content in meaningful ways that are personally and academically appropriate, and are aware of their own learning style (metacognition).
• Give timely and specific feedback to students.
• Know the standards to be used in assessment and evaluation, and the nature of that assessment.
• Invest adequate time and quality with a focused effort.
• Find real-world applications in many contexts so that students transfer what they are learning.
• Balance instruction so that all learners are challenged.
• Interact frequently with learners and other teachers.

Additionally, McTighe (2002) compiled findings on best instructional conditions and practices and reported the use of concept development, graphic organizers, teaching to multiple intelligences, and metacognition training to be effective practice. Teachers who teach concepts inductively through the use of examples and non-examples promote learning because this strategy actively involves students in constructing a personal understanding of a new concept. Teachers who utilize graphic organizers with their students promote learning because knowledge that is organized into holistic conceptual frameworks is more easily remembered and understood than unstructured bits of information. By attending to students' strengths and helping develop other areas, teachers accommodate more learners and give students a greater repertoire of problem solving tools. Teachers who help students develop and internalize metacognitive strategies through direct instruction, modeling, and use of practice, promote learning because the effective use of such strategies is one of the primary differences between more and less able learners.

References

Barth, R. S. (1992). Improving schools from within. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 12, 108.

Cawelti, G. (Ed.) (1995). Handbook of Research on Improving Student Achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F.  (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education.  American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 3-7.

Chickering, A.W., & Ehrmann, S.C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 3-6.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1.

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational Leadership, 61(8): 6–11.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1992). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. New York: Longman.

Fullan, M., & Rolheiser, C. (2002). Breaking through change barriers. Maryland State Department of Education.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school:  Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Havelock, R. G., & Zlotolow, S. (1995). The change agent’s guide, 2^nd ed. Educational Technology Publications.

Johnson, D., & McLeod, S. (2004). Get answers: Using student response systems to see students' thinking. Learning & Leading With Technology, 32(4), 18-23.

Langlois, D. E., & Zales, C. R. (1992). Anatomy of a top teacher. Education Digest, 57, 31-34.

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Polack, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

McTighe, J. (2002). Understanding by design. Maryland State Department of Education, as printed in Breaking Through Change Barriers (June 2002) by Michael Fullan and Carol Rolheiser. Reprinted with permission.

Walberg, (1995). In Cawelti, G. (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Improving Student Achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Kamp, D. (1999). The 21st century manager: Future-focused skills for the next millennium. Dover, NH: Kogan Page.

Negroponte, N. (1996). Being digital. New York: Vintage Books.

Rifkin, J. (2000). Age of access. New York: J. P. Tarcher.

Senge, P. (Ed.). (2000). Schools that learn. New York: Doubleday.

Ripley, D. (2002). Using technology to improve the quality of classroom instruction.” In Proceedings: International Conference on Computers in Education, 2, 3-6, pp. 1423 – 1424.

McKenzie, J. (2000). Beyond Edutainment and Technotainment. From Now on: The Educational Technology Journal, 10 (1).

Lead Teacher Conceptual Framework

Elementary & Secondary Masters of Education Program

Information Technologies

Learning technologies represents the broad range of communication, information, and related technologies that can be used to support learning, teaching, and assessment. Educators who use today’s technologies are actively involved in managing, researching, supporting or enabling learning. A very wide range of people in education have learning technology as a core part of their role: lead teachers use learning technologies to support themselves, their colleagues, and their students in navigating the knowledge world of the twenty-first century. These learning technologies support current learning theories and models to communicate, collaborate, and problem-solve/think critically, make data-driven decisions, engage in social, cultural or behavioral change, and select and utilize research-based practices in their classrooms and with their colleagues.

Communication

Lead teachers use computers and other technologies effectively and appropriately to communicate information in a variety of formats.  They, for instance, communicate, using technologies such as email, videoconferencing, blogging, drop boxes, forums, texting, and podcasting.  They use:

• Video and digitalized artifacts as a tool to provide a shared classroom experience in teacher education and professional development
• Online social networks for educators to promote interactive sharing and problem-solving and communicate information and ideas with students, parents, and peers
• Online professional development programs (Borko, Whitcomb, & Liston, 2009).

Lead teachers also utilize interactive modes of participation in harmonious and helpful manners (Maor, 2003; McDonald & Gibson, 1998).  In the 21^st century when technologies are one of the key communication tools, they promote and model digital etiquette and responsible social interactions related to the use of technology and information (NETS-T).  For instance, while communicating and utilizing digital information and technology, lead teachers advocate, model, and teach safe, legal, and ethical use of it, including respect for copyright, intellectual property, and the appropriate documentation of sources.  They understand local and global societal issues and responsibilities in an evolving digital culture and exhibit legal and ethical behavior in their professional practices (NETS-T). 

Data-Driven Assessment

Lead teachers are “data literate:” that is, they possess a basic understanding of how data can be used to inform instruction. Research shows that if instructional plans at the state, county, district, school, classroom, and individual student levels are based on assessment information relevant to the desired learning outcomes for students, the probability is increased that desired learning outcomes (DuFour & Eaker, 2005).

Educators must understand that assessment of student performance is integral in the planning, implementation, assessment, and revision of instruction. Data literacy also implies that the educator must be able to determine whether or not an assessment is a valid and reliable measure of what is being taught and to know what types of assessments are appropriate for district level vs. classroom or individual student level planning. What is commonly referred to as a “cycle of inquiry” illustrates the basic steps in the application of data to inform instructional decision-making: (1) conduct assessments, (2) obtain relevant data, (3) analyze data, (4) determine conclusions, (5) plan instruction, and (6) implement instruction (and the cycle repeats).

Lead teachers are knowledgeable about technology applications that equip them with the current student assessment data on demand and in a user-friendly format. A wide variety of technology applications are available, with many more emerging, that are intended to assist educators in making data-driven decisions. Lead teachers are versed in identifying and selecting electronic assessment tools that assist in accessing, analyzing, and making data-driven decisions using student data, and range from the district to the classroom levels. They know about sources of information to help educators become data literate and learn how to make the most effective use of learning technologies. Key sources include:

1.    Data Warehouses: Data warehouses are large integrated databases that connect relevant information from other sources into a single accessible format. They allow users to look at data from multiple operational systems across multiple dimensions, including time. These systems have the advantage that they can import and analyze data from a variety of other systems that cannot otherwise communicate with each other.

 2.   Data Analysis & Reporting Systems: These systems provide the ability to examine aggregate student performance measured across a wide array of variables and oriented to any scale: district, school, program or classroom. These systems are designed primarily as analytical and reporting tools for district and site administrators, and can also provide useful summary data for classroom teachers.

3.    Curriculum Management Systems: Curriculum management systems are designed to help teachers and site administrators plan and monitor the instructional program. These systems integrate teachers' curriculum planning, lesson plans, assessments and grade reporting into a standards-based system linked with data from the school's student information system.

4.    Instruction & Practice Systems: Instruction and practice systems are designed to help teachers align their curriculum and instructional resources to state and local standards. These systems typically provide teachers standards-aligned lesson plans, skill sets and assessments and a standards-based reporting system to supplement the resources a teacher already uses.

5.    Assessment and Diagnostic systems: These systems provide assessment tools to determine student strengths and weaknesses in various academic areas aligned with state curricular standards. They provide feedback and practice to students and teachers in what they should know and be able to do in relation to the standards. Assessment and diagnostic systems sometimes are imbedded into electronic learning resources.

Collaboration

Lead teachers use technologies to collaborate with others (Parr & Ward, 2006;  Sorensen, 2005).  They use virtual spaces such as online communities to plan, design, implement, and evaluate in collaboration with others.  They also elaborate and share reflections on their practices with colleagues through a wide range of technologies-video, computers, satellite, and closed circuit broadcast television (Hawkes and Romiszowski, 2001; Rich & Hannafin, 2009).  In this process, lead teachers create partnerships with novice teachers, experienced teachers and teacher educators (Wright, Wilson, Gordon & Stallworth, 2002) both in and out of their own school districts (Spicer & Dede, 2006) and exhibit their leadership.  They demonstrate a vision of technology infusion, participating in shared decision making and community building, and developing the leadership and technology skills of others (NETS-T).

Lead teachers use technologies and utilize the individual student perspectives and knowledge and engaging students in interactive collaboration and shared knowledge building (Sorensen, 2005).   They use appropriate activities, artifacts, materials, and tools that support the emergence of shared knowledge building that was meaningful to all students (Pringle, 2002).  They also model collaborative knowledge construction by engaging in learning with students, colleagues and others in face-to-face and virtual environment (NETS-T).  

Lead teachers also create learning environment where students become active, reflect on interesting issues raised during the development of a course of study, and then shared with their peers in the non-threatening environment of the learning community (Roth, 1998).   They promote students’ learning, using collaborative tools to reveal and clarify students’ conceptual understanding and thinking, planning, and creative process (NETS-T).  By having them use Moodle, Blackboard or OnCourse and share assignments, messages, and postings, lead teachers model online collaboration to students.

Lastly, Lead teachers expand their teaching, using technologies, within a global context.  They strive for instructional strategies, and design lessons that would help students figure out the challenges they might encounter in the global context (Pringle, 2002).  Like pre-service teachers (Wilder & Malone, 2005), lead teachers also use information and communication technologies effectively and collaborate with colleagues in other cultures.  They develop and model cultural understanding and global awareness by engaging with colleagues and students of other cultures using digital-age communication and collaboration tools.

Critical Thinking

Lead teachers move beyond acquiring skills to use technologies.  They integrate technologies when they design, create, and provide learning opportunities where students learn critical thinking skills.  They also help students engaged in real-world issues and solving authentic problems, using appropriate technologies as a tool (NETS-T).  Most importantly, lead teachers understand that PK-12 students’ learning through technologies must be less generic but content specific (Flick & Bell, 2000;  Henriques, 2002; Huges, 2004, 2005;  Molebash, 2002).  They understand that a culture of inquiry around technology for learning supports risk-taking and knowledge creation (Jacobson, Clifford & Friesen, 2002), and supporting students to share their conjectures, defend their solutions, and developing thinking skills (Sliva, 2002). 

Lead teachers help students to organize and search for information:  text, pictures, sounds, videos, and references to other sources that contain more information (Clifford & Friesen, 2001).  They use appropriate technology resources for students to identify and evaluate information, create and transfer information.   Considering the unlimited amount of information, technology resources allow students to create knowledge by working with information, not just memorizing it.  Lead teachers create learning opportunities for students to look for commonalities and differences among groups or classes of things, analyze relationships, identify and interpret trends and patterns, test and refine hypotheses, and organize and share information (Jacobson et al).

Lead teachers also use technologies, considering context and students (Misha & Koehler, 2006).  They customize and personalize learning opportunities to address students’ diverse learning styles, working strategies, and abilities using digital tools and resources.   They also develop technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their original learning goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress (NETS-T).  Lastly, in order to monitor students’ progress, lead teachers provide students with multiple and varied formative and summative assessments aligned with content and technology standards and use resulting data to inform learning and teaching (NETS-T).

Change Agency 

“A change agent is someone who engages either deliberately or whose behavior results in social, cultural or behavioral change. This can be studied scientifically and effective techniques can be discovered and employed (Havelock & Zlotolow, 1995). ” In the last 20 years, technological advances have resulted in new opportunities to use technology to improve learning and instruction. As a result, there is an increasing demand on teachers to develop the skills to make effective use of technology (Ertmer, Conklin, Lewandowski, Osika, Selo, & Wignall, 2003). Much technology has been placed in schools such as computers, educational software, etc., and much training for teachers’ skills and knowledge of  teaching with technology has been provided. Despite these efforts, many teachers still do not integrate technology effectively even when they have the technology and initial training (Beavers, 2001; Hope, 1998). This situation is attributed to a variety of factors, including lack of proper teacher education (Ward, West, & Isaak, 2002).  Researchers have suggested that teacher education with regard to technology integration should go well beyond teaching technical skills. Specifically, training and education should take into account teacher motivation regarding the use of technology (Llorens, Salanova, & Grau, 2002).

Pedagogical agents respond to the learner in a social manner through human-like interactions (Kim & Baylor, 2006b). The human-like characteristics of pedagogical agents are advantageous for enhancing more positive and vivid interactions with pre-service teachers. In addition, pedagogical agents may also be perceived as empathetic, credible and trustworthy, positioning them to serve as effective agents of change. When pedagogical agents are perceived as empathetic, credible and trustworthy, they have been demonstrated to be effective in influencing attitudes (Baylor & Plant, 2005; Ryu & Baylor, 2005).  In situations where the adoption of an educational innovation is a desired outcome, the concept of a change agent is relevant  (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Rogers, 1995). A change agent is generally an individual who facilitates the diffusion of an innovation for potential adopters (Rogers, 1995). The concept of a change agent has been highlighted in the context of educational technology innovations (Ellsworth, 2000; Huberman & Miles, 1984). However, most of the research has focused on the effects of a human as a change agent and has not considered the problem of insufficient human resources. 

A variety of roles and functions of pedagogical agents have been studied. Four major roles for pedagogical agents have been identified: (a) an expert who provides information, (b) a mentor who advises, (c) a motivator who encourages, and (d) a companion who collaborates (Baylor & Group, 2003; Baylor & Kim, 2005; Kim & Baylor, 2006a, 2006b). Many studies investigating pedagogical agents have focused on their impact on learning outcomes. Even in studies where positive effects on motivation were observed, motivational changes were considered secondary to learning outcomes and were not often studied independently (Ryu & Baylor, 2005). Recently motivational outcomes have been receiving more attention, and studies have shown that pedagogical interface agents can be effective in promoting motivation and attitude change (Baylor & Plant, 2005; Moreno et al., 2002; Moreno, Mayer, Spires, & Lester, 2001; Silverman et al., 2001). However, few studies focus specifically on motivation. In addition, despite the fact that pedagogical agents can be designed with specific characteristics beneficial for learners, there have been few attempts to study pedagogical agents that incorporate multiple roles or functions (Baylor & Ebbers, 2003). Instead, studies have tended to focus on agents with single and separate roles.

Research-based Practices

In the field of education, the term "best practice" is used to describe strategies, methods, and pedagogies that are informed by research, proven effective at achieving target outcomes, and accepted by leaders in the field. 
 According to Daniels, & Hyde (1998), some of these constructivist-based strategies identified as best practice include student-centered instruction, experiential and holistic learning, authentic experiences, reflective exercises, social interactions that scaffold learning, collaborative grouping, problem-oriented activities, and integrated thematic units (Daniels & Bizar (1998). Technology can play an important role in increasing students’ motivation to learn, in helping learners to visualize problems and solutions, in acquiring technology literacy, information literacy, and visual literacy and in supporting a variety of instructional approaches such as cooperative learning, shared intelligence, and critical thinking (Grabinger, 1996).

Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of integrating technology into classroom practices is that technologies can be "used as engagers and facilitators of thinking and knowledge construction;" thus becoming something students learn with, not from (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999). Lead teachers are comfortable as co-learners with their students and with colleagues around the world. Today it is less about staying ahead and more about moving ahead as members of dynamic learning communities. The digital-age teaching professional must demonstrate a vision of technology infusion and develop the technology skills of others.  These are the hallmarks of the lead teacher (Don Knezek (2008).

Lead teachers ensure that three elements are always present in good models of teaching with technology: (1) all technology-enhanced activities should be deliberately and consciously aligned with local, state, and national standards, (2) each learning activity should be accompanied with well-defined indicators of success, and (3) technology must be readily accessible in a way that meets the needs of all learners (NETS, 2000). Any number of the strategies presented may be utilized in good models of teaching with technology. 
Technology-enhanced lessons and activities should represent a variety of learning strategies that include active learning strategies, constructive learning strategies, authentic learning strategies, cooperative learning strategies, and intentional/reflective learning strategies (Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). To be used effectively, technology must be readily accessible in a way that meets the needs of all learners. This includes both ready access to hardware, software, and connectivity, as well as ready access to content and ideas being presented

It is not the computer alone that will impact learning, but a pedagogical shift towards student-centered classrooms with more project-based activities and opportunities for collaboration and co-operation on life skills. With regards to technology integration, constructivist-learning environments would allow students to engage in meaningful and useful activities through which learning is accomplished. Good teaching combined with appropriate and effective uses of technology makes for a dynamic, rich learning environment.

References

Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (2), 416-427.

Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Merrill, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent's voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30 (1), 117-139.

Baylor, A. L. (2001). Permutations of control: Cognitive considerations for agent-based learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12 (4), 403-425.

Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50 (2), 5-22.

Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15 (1), 95 - 115.

Baylor, A. L., Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., & Plant, E. A. (2006). Interface agents as social models: The impact of appearance on females’ attitude toward engineering. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 22-27, 2006, Montreal, Canada.

Baylor, A. L., Ryu, J., & Shen, E. (2003b). The effects of pedagogical agent voice and animation on learning, motivation, and perceived persona. Paper presented at the Annual World conference of Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, & Telecommunication, June 23-28, 2003, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Becker, H. J. (2000, January). Findings from the teaching, learning and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Paper presented at the School Technology Leadership Conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, D.C.

Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009).  Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning.  Journal of Teacher Education, 60 (1), 3-7.

Bradshaw, L. K. (1997). Technology-supported change: A staff development opportunity. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 81 (593), 86-92.

Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., & Berg, K. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: the PT3@ASU Project. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51 (1), 57-72.

Cardelle-Elawar, M., & Wetzel, K. (1995). Students and computers as partners in developing students’ problem-solving skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(4), 387-401.

Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34 (4), 411-433.

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering the research on media. Review of Educational Research, 53 (4), 445-459.

Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2001). The stewardship of the intellect: Classroom life, educational innovation and technology. In B. Barrell (Ed.), Issues in the integration of technology into teaching, learning, and school culture(s). Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises.

Cobb, P., & Bowles, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28, 4-15.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4), 813-834.

Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking with technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (3), 342-361.

McCombs, B. L. (2003). Learner-Centered Principles: A Framework for Teaching [Symposium]. Theory into Practice, 4 (2), 93-158.

Ellsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving Change: A Survey of Educational Change Models, New York, NY: ERIC Clearing house on Information and Technology.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (4), 25-39.

Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for Science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1 (1).

Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 665-692). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.). Syracuse: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.

Hawkes, M., & Romiszowski, A. (2001). Examining the reflective outcomes of asynchronous computer-mediated communication on inservice teacher development.  Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (2), 285-308.

Henriques, L. (2002). Preparing tomorrow’s science teachers to use technology: An example from the field. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(1), 3-18.

Hughes, J.  (2005).  The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy.  Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302.

Hughes, J. (2004). Technology learning principles for preservice and in-service teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4 (3), 345-362.

International Society for Technology in Education.  (2008).  National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (2^nd Ed.).

Jacobsen, M., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2002).  Preparing teachers for technology integration: Creating a culture of inquiry in the context of use. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2 (3), 363-388.

Jerald, C. D., & Orlofsky, G. F. (1999). Raising the bar on school technology. Education Week. Retrieved January 2000 from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/articles/up-intro.htm

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1017-1044). New York: Macmillan.

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River: Merrill.

Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006a). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54 (3), 223-243.

Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006b). A social cognitive framework for designing pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54 (6), 569-596.

Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L., & Reed, G. (2003). The impact of image and voice with pedagogical agents. Paper presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education, November 7-11, 2003, Phoenix, Arizona.

Kim. C., & Baylor, A. L. (2008). A virtual change agent: Motivating pre-service teachers to integrate technology in their future classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (2), 309-321.

Llorens, S., Salanova, M., & Grau, R. (2002). Training to technological change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (2), 206-212.

Maor, D. (2003). The teacher’s role in developing interaction and reflection in an online learning community. Education Media International, 40 (1/2), 127-137.

McDonald, J., & Gibson, G. C. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics and group development in computer conferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education, 12 (1), 7-25.

Mills, S. C., & Tincher, R. C. (2003). Be the technology: A developmental model for evaluating technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (3), 382-401.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006).  Technological pedagogical content knowledge:  A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge.  Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.

Molebash, P. E. (2002). Commentary: Phases of collaborative success: A response to Shoffner, Dias, and Thomas. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2 (1), 63-72.

Moreno, K. N., Person, N. K., Adcock, A. B., van Eck, R. N., Jackson, G. T., & Marineau, J. C. (2002). Etiquette and efficacy in animated pedagogical agents: The role of stereotypes. Paper presented at the AAAI Symposium.  

Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19 (2), 177-213.

Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2005). Integrating computer technology into the classroom (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology (NCES 2000-102). Washington, D.C.: Department of Education. Retrieved January 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000102

National educational technology standards for teachers (2000). Eugene, OR: ISTE. Retrieved January 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://cnets.iste.org/index3.html

Parr, J., & Ward, L.  (2006). Building on foundations: creating an online community.  Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 775-793

Peters, M. T., & Heron, T. E. (1993). When the best is not good enough: An examination of best practice. Journal of Special Education, 26 (4), 371-386.

Pringle, R. M. (2002). Developing a community of learners: Potentials and possibilities in web mediated discourse. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2 (2), 218-233.

Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M.  (2009).  Video annotation tools: Technologies to scaffold, structure, and transform teacher reflection.  Journal of Teacher Education, 60 (1), 52-67.

Roblyer, M. D., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Roth, W. M. (1998). Designing communities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Rovai, A. P., & Childress, M. D. (2002). Explaining and predicting resistance to computer anxiety reduction among teacher education students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (2), 226-235.

Ryu, J., & Baylor, A. L. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology, Instruction, Cognition & Learning, 2 (4), 291-319.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Science teachers' perspectives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32 (5), 619-622.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 726-764). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillian.

Sliva, J.  (2002). Developing a mathematical community using an electronic discussion forum in an elementary mathematics methods course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2 (1), 79-94.

Sorensen, E. K. (2005).  Networked elearning and collaborative knowledge building: Design and  facilitation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4 (4), 446-455.

Spector, J. M., & Koszalka, T. A. (2004). The DEEP methodology for assessing learning in complex domains, Final report to the National Science Foundation Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.

Thompson, A. D., Schmidt, D. A., & Davis, N. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51 (1), 73-89.

Ward, J. R., West, L. S., & Isaak, T. J. (2002). Mentoring: a strategy for change in teacher technology education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10 (4), 553-569.

Weidmann, W., & Humphrey, M. B. (2002). Building a network to empower teachers for school reform. School Science and Mathematics, 102 (2), 88-93.

Wilder, H., & Malone, T. (2005). Intercultural technology education for preservice teachers in Namibia and New Jersey. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4 (4), 456- 464.

Willis, J. (2001). Foundational assumptions for information technology and teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(3), 305-320.

Wright, V. H., Wilson, E. K., Gordon, W., & Stallworth, J. B. (2002). Master technology teacher: A partnership between preservice and inservice teachers and teacher educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2 (3), 353-362.

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in America's schools (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self regulated learning and academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 3-17.