School of Education

• Communication Skills
• Higher-Order Thinking Skills
• Instructional Media and Technology
• Learning and Development
• School Culture and Diversity
• Instructional Design and Delivery
• Classroom Management
• Assessment and Evaluation
• Professional Development
• References

Introduction

The mission of the Initial Program in the School of Education (SOE) at Indiana University Northwest (IU Northwest) is to provide the beginning teacher with the knowledge, dispositions, and skills essential to becoming agents of change.  Reflective Professionals (Agents of Change) are ones who critically examine teaching practices, make informed decisions and solve problems. Teaching is no different from any other profession in this regard: its effectiveness depends to a large extent on the capacity of its practitioners to exercise reasoned judgment, which depends upon a sequence of cognitive and behavioral operations involving the processing and evaluation of information (Shulman, 1987).

Appropriately, the basis of all undergraduate teacher preparation activities in the SOE is centered on the knowledge, skills and dispositions which advance the development of Reflective Professionals (Agents of Change). The faculty believes that the beginning teacher needs to be capable of reviewing, instructing, reenacting, and evaluating student performance, as well as their own. Based on these assumptions, the graduates of the Initial Program must possess competencies in the following areas: a) communication skills, b) higher-order thinking skills, c) instructional media and technology, d) learning and development, e) understanding school culture and diversity, f) instructional design and delivery, g) classroom management, h) assessment and evaluation, and i) professional development.

This conceptual framework shapes the entire preparation of Reflective Professionals (Agents of Change).  The definitions and knowledge bases below provide the curricular foundation for this Conceptual Model. Within each literature review are the scholarly writings from which the framework was developed. Each review was the product of numerous meetings and discussions with colleagues within the SOE, from other units in the university, learned societies, school practitioners, federal and state agencies, and students.

This Conceptual Framework is monitored by the faculty through the implementation of a performance-based Unit Assessment System. This system is documented partly through student portfolios that contain key performances judged by faculty as meeting criteria required of a beginning teacher. These portfolios and faculty records of the student assessments required in courses (as outlined in syllabi) provide documentation to determine how well undergraduates are educated to be Reflective Professionals (Agents of Change).  This Unit Assessment System allows faculty to make changes in the design and sequence of courses to better educate and prepare beginning teachers. To determine student satisfaction, faculty also conduct course evaluations within each course in the various curricula within the SOE, a series of focus groups of randomly selected courses, and a survey of program graduates after one year. These evaluative products are then analyzed for the purpose of program improvement and recommendations for change which are coordinated with the unit’s administration and faculty.

Back to Top

Conceptual Framework Knowledge Base

Communication Skills
Back to Top

Knowledge Base

Reflective Professionals (Agents of Change) must be skilled in communicating with and influencing adults as well as children (Riley, 1998). Teachers spend increasing amounts of time in conferences with their peers discussing children’s academic progress, in building and school district committee work, and in meetings with parents. This trend toward more adult interaction has been fueled by special education requirements, effective school research, and by increasingly complex student problems (Council for Exceptional Children, 1995; Many, 2001; Lightfoot, 1978; Turnbull &Turnbull, 1986). Certainly, these challenges result in the need for well developed language skills - listening, speaking, reading, and writing - that help Reflective Professional (Agents of Change) advance the organizational climate of the school as well as student learning (Adger & Christian, 1999; Darling-Hammond, L, 1991; Florio & Detar, 2002; Goodlad, 1994).

The effective use of language has been identified as an essential pedagogical goal in the School of Education. The faculty believes that if Reflective Professional (Agents of Change) are expected to effectively instruct children, those same teachers must be proficient in the use of language in all its forms. This language proficiency assumes the ability to do the following: a) listen actively and organize their thoughts for oral communication, b) speak confidently and clearly, c) read at levels appropriate to the needs of the profession, and d) write with clear focus, logical organization, proper style, and appropriate voice.; Most important, the faculty believes that each of these elements of language must be addressed individually throughout the teacher preparation program (Indiana University Northwest General Education Competencies, 1995; Rowan & Miller, 1997).

• This theme acknowledges INTASC Principle 6: The teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration and supportive interaction in the classroom.; In addition, it addresses all of the INTASC Principles because communication is vital in meeting each of the INTASC Principles.

Higher-Order Thinking Skills
Back to Top;

Knowledge Base

Higher-order thinking skills involve critical thinking and learning to be a better problem solver (Pogrow, 1990).; Indeed, the very process of getting smarter has been detailed in terms of solving problems and being challenged to think critically (Moursund, 1990).  Reflective Professionals (Agents of Change) are prepared to make complex decisions involving new ideas, pressing social issues and questions affecting their teaching and ultimately the profession itself. Accordingly, our program recognizes the importance of metacognition (Cornford, 2002) as students think about the nature of learning and the development of thinking skills in their own students (Shulman, 1989).

Part of critical thinking is the development of a meaningful understanding. Our faculty believes in the importance of a strong conceptual base in any discipline, the generation of accurate mental models (Halpern, 1987; Strauss, 1993) and new perceptions (Osborne & Wittrock, 1983; Whimbey and Lochhead, 1986). The faculty also hold that one way to become better at solving problems, is by solving harder problems. The value of focused curiosity, unanswered questions and problem-based learning is well supported by other professionals (Gallagher, 1998; Muffoletto, 1998). The faculty, therefore, strives to provide the active experiences, practice and challenges necessary for students to grow into reflective and critical thinking professionals (Danielson, 1996; Starkweather, 1997).

• This theme is closely aligned with INTASC Principle 4: The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students’ development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills. This is a theme that is believed by the faculty to be essential to meeting all INTASC Principles given that teachers must think critically throughout their day in all of the activities in which they engage.

Instructional Media and Technology
Back to Top

Knowledge Base

Technology is no longer a sideline endeavor, a mere enhancement to enrich other areas of study. A new frontier of learning and teaching with technology has already begun. Instructional technology is not only a legitimate discipline area but an integral part of virtually every area of study and learning faced by today's students of all ages (Knapp and Glenn, 1996; Lever-Duffy, McDonald, & Mizell, 2003). The role of computer technology is no longer an isolated tool for the storage and retrieval of information and for production of paper printouts. Today, computers are complete workstations where students study, learn, communicate and work in virtually all discipline areas interacting with the whole world (Churma, 1999).

Mere training and learning to use technology is not sufficient; the discipline is continuously changing and evolving (Cocco, 1995; Peck, 2001). It is therefore essential that reflective professionals have an evolving conceptual understanding and ongoing adaptability to new technology for tomorrow (Galloway, J. P. & Blohm, P., 1997; Galloway, J. P., 1990). The faculty see technology as an integral component of the teacher education program and Reflective Professionals (Agents of Change) should know how to enhance learning through the use of a wide variety of media; e.g., computers, printing, audio-visual recording technologies, videotapes and discs, the Internet, World-Wide-Web, etc. (Molenda & Harris, 2001). The faculty also believes that while a beginning course in educational computing is necessary to ensure a satisfactory base-line of experiences with fundamental technology tools, today's beginning teachers need continued experience with technological productivity at all levels of the preservice curriculum (Tomei, 1999).

• This theme is closely related with the media referenced in INTASC Principle 6: The teacher uses knowledge of the effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom. Again, throughout the Initial Program, this theme is essential to meeting all INTASC Principles.

Learning and Development
Back to Top;

Knowledge Base

The faculty embraces the need for a knowledge base grounded in learning and developmental theory. Everything teachers do is impacted by the developmental and learning levels of their students (Bigge, 1982). A teacher who does not acknowledge these individual differences in day-to-day decisions is behaving blindly. The faculty strongly believes that the use of principles and theories of human learning, development, and behavior that can help beginning teachers make informed instructional decisions in the classroom is essential.

According to Ormrod (2003), Educators should “keep in mind that no single theoretical orientation gives a complete picture of how people learn.” In other words, the vast majority of teachers cannot be neatly categorized as behaviorists, humanists, or cognitive theorists. They are, rather, eclectic, selecting and adapting what they regard as the better features of each system. Moreover, planning for instruction involves decision-making regarding the systematic use of selected techniques, methods, and strategies to create a dynamic interface between the curriculum and the students (Kindsvatter, et. al., 1988). The instructional strategies we choose will inevitably depend on the particular students we will be teaching (Ormrod, 2003). The practices teachers adopt may include exploring different perspectives and research findings on how students develop through the school years, how students differ from one another in ways that affect their classroom performance, how they learn most effectively, what things motivate them, and how their learning and achievement can best be measured and evaluated.

Finally, the SOE faculty recognize their professional responsibility for engaging in and supporting appropriate professional practices that “emphasize the continuity of relationships among the physical, cognitive, and affective realms of development” (Papalia et al., 1998). As learning is social in nature, the faculty believes that educators who are aware of and use differences in language, values, cultural norms, and behavior styles to enrich instruction can help students from diverse settings become successful learners (Guild, 1994). When students from various culture groups interact regularly, and particularly when they come together as equals, work towards 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; Ramsey, 1995). Many factors influence what and how well our students are likely to learn and remember classroom material. Naturally, students will differ considerably with regard to these factors. They will have unique knowledge bases on which to draw, and they will elaborate differently on the ideas we present (Grant & Gomez, 1996). Students with differing cognitive styles, special educational needs, and diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds approach the task of learning in disparate fashions.; Helping such students learn requires familiarity with learning and development theory.

• This theme mirrors INTASC Principle 2: The teacher understands how children learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support their intellectual, social, and personal development. It is also related to Principle 4 which focuses on instructional strategies and development of critical thinking, and Principle 5 that promotes an understanding of motivation and creating learning environments.

School Culture and Diversity
Back to Top

Knowledge Base

The faculty of the SOE believe that the welfare of the country depends on an educated citizenry. Over the years the public schools have assumed the responsibility of educating an increasingly diverse population of students. Literacy for everyone is understood to include the skills required for intelligent participation in a democracy. As John Dewey pointed out, persons have to be “educated to personal initiative and adaptability. Otherwise they will be overwhelmed by the changes in which they are caught and whose significance or connections they do not perceive” (1916, p. 102). Additionally, when citizens are deprived of access to knowledge and the requisite benefits, they will likely withdraw from the responsibilities of citizenship; and the democracy will be weakened.

The SOE believes that education goes beyond mere socialization in a democratic society. Schooling is also responsible for initiating persons into reflective citizenship and membership in what Dewey called an “articulate public” (1954, p.184). Moreover, the faculty believes that without a knowledge base that promotes understanding of political and cultural contexts, beginning teachers are not likely to empower their own students to make sense of the impinging world. Educators today are expected to prepare students from increasingly diverse backgrounds to contribute in meaningful ways to our democratic society and even to the world in which we live (Gollnick & Chinn, 2002; Irvine & Armento, 2001; Hernandez, 2001; Beauboeuf-Lafontant & Augustine, 1996; Takai, 1993; Greene, 1993).

The School faculty also appreciate that the school cultures are state sponsored bureaucracies that are shaped by economic, social and political forces (Apple, 1979, 1993). Although public education remains a state responsibility, the federal government has established a significant presence in public schools with the passage of the Civil Rights Act (1964), the Rehabilitation Act (1973), and the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (1990/97). This legislation indeed promotes equal protection and educational; equity for all students. In addition, the SOE believes that the reflective professional must be aware of these occurrences to ensure that all students in their care receive an “equal education” through inviting and multicultural strategies and assessments (Banks, 2001; Fisher et al., 1987; Gollnick & Chinn, 2002; Hernandez, 2001; Irvine & Armento, 2001; Novak & Purkey, 2001; Purkey & Novak, 1996).

• This theme parallels INTASC Principle 3: The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adopted to diverse learners; and Principle 5: The teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active management in learning, and self-motivation.

Instructional Design and Delivery
Back to Top

Knowledge Base

School faculty subscribe to the proposition of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards that teachers should know the subjects they teach as well as how to teach those subjects to their students (Blackwell and Diez, 1998). In 1973 Shavelson asserted that decision making was the basic teaching skill. Hunter (1984, p. 169) later interpreted teaching as the “stream of professional decisions that affects the probability of learning.” School faculty believes that reflective professionals learn to be effective designers and deliverers of instruction. They can make the decisions that best promote learning in their students.

Brophy and Good (1986) found that teachers whose students achieved the most, planned on a daily basis prior to instruction. As a result, lesson and unit planning are essential components of the teacher preparation program at IU Northwest. Recognizing that teaching is a contextual practice and that there is not just one effective method of teaching, the faculty models several modes of teaching such as direct instruction, cooperative learning, inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, and learning styles-based instruction.

Research over the last several decades has provided much insight into teaching and learning. Ausubel (1968) proposed that teachers find out what learners already know and teach them accordingly. Glasser (1976) argued that theories of instruction had to be based upon research into competent performance, initial state of learners, and learning itself. Schoon and Boone (1998) showed that the holding of certain misconceptions of science was related to low self-efficacy beliefs among teacher candidates. Bransford and Vye (1989) noted that research has great implications for teachers. The School faculty believes that reflective professionals use research as they plan for delivery.  Action research done by teacher candidates is a part of the School of Education teacher preparation program.

Gall (1984) showed that teacher use of higher-level questioning results in deeper learning and application than questioning that asks for simple recall. IU Northwest faculty respond to this by modeling the types of questioning that calls for analysis of problems and synthesis of solutions. Savoie and Hughes (1994) showed that active learning methodologies resulted in better student achievement. Haney, Lumpe, Czerniak, and Egan (2002) confirmed that there is a relationship between what teachers believe and what they do in the classroom. Therefore, it is essential candidates examine their own belief systems and dispositions to teaching. Dispositions may be the most influential factor in determining success as an effective teacher.

• This theme acknowledges INTASC Principle 1: The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline he/she teaches and can create learning experiences that make those aspects of subject matter meaningful to students. It also intersects with INTASC Principle 2 that focuses on use of instructional strategies in the classroom.

Classroom Management
Back to Top

Knowledge Base

Classroom management involves all those actions by a teacher which affect student learning and behavior. The faculty of the School of Education at IU Northwest believes that effective classroom management is achieved through proactive means (Glasser, 1997, 1998). Reflective Professionals (Agents of Change) can maximize student involvement and minimize student disruption. Purkey and Novak (1996) emphasized that effective classrooms are inviting classrooms, where teachers intentionally invite the active participation of their students in the learning process. That is, the teachers exhibit behavior which invites students to belong and to learn. Harmin (1994, p.2) encouraged all teachers to “aim for a fully inspirational classroom.” He envisioned an effective classroom as one in which students are treated with dignity, where students are involved, and that they are self-managing and self-motivated.

Henderson (1992) proposed that the first characteristic of reflective teaching is the ethic of caring. He noted that caring teachers try to understand their students—both the students as individuals as well as; answers to their questions.  The faculty in the SOE believes this is important for all students, especially students with disabilities (Wigle & DeMoulin, 1999). Borich (1992) proposed that motivation is the first step in preventing behavior problems in the classroom. The faculty, therefore, model and encourage their preservice teachers to motivate students by designing lessons which are age- and developmentally-appropriate, as well as meaningful and relevant to their students (Wigle & Manges, 1995)

The IU Northwest faculty subscribe to the belief postulated by Dewey (1916) that the school is the place where children are prepared for citizenship. They carry out that belief by modeling and encouraging the use of classroom methodologies that promote active and cooperative learning, meaningful activities, and mutual feelings of dignity and respect.

Recognizing that for various reasons classroom disruptions do occur, the faculty realizes that teachers must be prepared to effectively deal with misbehavior and must do so with as little additional disruption as possible. Curwin and Mendler (1988) claim that classroom rules are important, but they are often overemphasized. They proposed that rules based upon principles and enforcement that included consequences were far more important to the achievement of long-term behavior change. The IU Northwest faculty encourage their preservice teachers to create classroom environments and procedures that minimize disruption, but then to respond to disruptions as they occur with prescribed consequences and suggestions for improvement (Eggen & Kauchak, 2001; Evertson, Emmer, Clements & Worsham, 2000).

• This conceptual theme is most aligned with INTASC Principle 5: The teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning and self-motivation. It also parallels Principle 7 that focuses on the knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals.

Assessment and Evaluation
Back to Top

Knowledge Base

Planning for instruction requires extensive reflection often involving synthesis and evaluative thinking (Kindsvattter, et. al., 1988). Teachers must first decide what outcomes are expected, and how these goals will be monitored (Smith, Peterson, & Micceri, 1987). The use of varied forms of assessment to measure the knowledge and skills of students is endorsed (Paris & Ayers, 1994). Portfolio usage is a form of authentic assessment that the faculty believes affords opportunity to measure student growth and development. Since portfolios are cumulative and occur over a period of time, this method can provide a "motion picture" of learning versus the snapshots provided by tests and quizzes (Stiffins, 2001; Ziomek, 1997). In addition, teacher-made-tests also present an opportunity for both formative and summative assessment. When students' mastery of instructional objectives is assessed, information is gained not only about the students but also about appropriateness of instructional objectives and the effectiveness of instructional strategies (Ormrod, 1998).

Other aspects of assessment deemed important by the faculty revolve around proper interpretation, confidentiality, and ethical use of standardized test results,  As indicated by Popham (1995; 2002), reflective professionals should certainly; be cognizant of the shortcomings of these instruments and the potential for bias. He defines an instrument with bias as "an instrument in which any of its items either offend or unfairly penalize some students on the basis of their ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status." Bias considerations also include the use of reliable and valid identification of students with special needs, especially involving children of color (Koretz & Hamilton, 2000; Heupert, 2000). The faculty believes that no magic formula exists for assuring accurate assessment of students with special needs: as teachers, we must assume our best professional judgment and realize that standardized tests are imperfect (American Education Research Association, 1999; Lehman, 2000). Of course, the confidentiality of these assessment results is mandated by federal legislation. According to the Family Rights and Privacy Act, it is indeed illegal to share students' test scores, grades, and school records with other students or with the general public (Ormrod, 1998).

• This theme mirrors INTASC Principle 8: The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social, and physical development of the learner.  Because assessment is at the heart of all teaching, this theme is critically related to all INTASC Principles.

Professional Development
Back to Top

Knowledge Base

Above all, the mission of professional development is to “prepare and support educators to help all students achieve high standards of learning and development” (U.S. Department of Education, 1994, p. 63774). Professional development focuses on teachers as central to school reform; reflects the best research and practice in teaching, learning and leadership; and promotes problem solving as a major teacher function. High quality professional development would ensure “the career-long development of teachers whose confidence, expectations, and actions influence the teaching and learning environment” (U.S. Department of Education, 1994, p. 63773). For teachers who are beginning their careers, praise from students, written recognition from colleagues and building administrators, and gaining control over their instructional decisions are powerful incentives for advancing their professional development (MacDonald & Healy, 1999). They are able to reflect on and continually evaluate the effects of choices and actions on others and actively seek out opportunities to grow professionally. They are also able to foster relationships with school colleagues, parents and families, and agencies in the larger community to support students’ learning and well being (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2002, p. 18).

A major factor that contributes to advancement of professional development is collaboration. For the novice teacher, learning to teach and learning to interact with colleagues are important needs. Beginning teachers grow professionally as they observe their colleagues teach, learn about exciting and worthwhile innovations and strategies, acknowledge the diversity of good ideas that different teachers bring to the profession, and make decisions about what and how they will incorporate into their own approaches.

(Lanier, 1988; Routman, 2000). Teachers learning about teaching from each other gradually build the mutual trust necessary to engage responsibly in problem-solving the needs of diverse learners. When teachers make connections, they form a community, thereby counteracting the isolation that pervades the teaching profession, fractionalizing programs of teaching and learning (Holmes Group, 1995). “When teachers are engaged together in thinking aloud about their work and its consequences, the results are a greater sense of professionalism and a stronger and more cohesive instructional program (Griffin, 1991). Through partnerships with colleagues, beginning teachers begin to view themselves as life-long learners and their school as a place where adults can work together and learn together throughout their professional careers.

Professional development must be planned and structured in ways that acknowledge and respond to the various career points of individual teachers. Beginning teachers are concerned initially with professional survival: establishing personal adequacy; sorting through the curriculum, mastering teaching skills, methods and technology; and impacting the achievement of students (Fuller, 1969; Yarger and Mertens, 1980). Beyond this induction level, as teachers gain intellectual, social and emotional experience, they become concerned about placing classroom practice into the larger context of school practice in the educational careers of children; they learn to apply techniques and perspectives of inquiry; and they assume a group role in activities designed; . . . “to increase the power and authority of their shared work” (Griffin, 1991).

Through the initiatives of the reform movements of the 1990s, reflective professionals are now expected to accept new and additional roles and responsibilities. Educators committed to attaining and remaining at the top of their profession invest much energy in staying informed and increasing their skills. They are then in a position to exercise leadership among colleagues (Danielson, 1996). Beginning teachers may be expected to take the risks associated with responsibilities to collaborate within and across grade levels and school districts, community agencies, parents and administrators to ensure that the instructional program has high, credible and achievable standards (e.g., National Council of Teachers of English, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics), assisting state movements to develop professional portfolio assessment techniques, or modeling teaching strategies and demonstrating their usefulness for their colleagues (Lieberman & Miller, 1991).

• This theme is closely aligned with both INTASC Principle 9: the teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally, and Principle 10: the teacher fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community to support student learning and well-being.

Adger, C., & Christian, D.; (1999).; Dialects in schools and communities.; New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

American Educational Research Association. (1999).; Standards for educational and psychological testing.; Washington, DC:; Author.

Apple, M.W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. London: Routledge

Apple, M.W. (1993). Official knowledge. New York: Routledge.

Ausubel, D. P.; (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View.; New York:; Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.

Banks, J.; (2001).; Cultural diversity and education:; Foundations, curriculum and
teaching.; Needham Heights, MA:; Allyn & Bacon.

Beauboeuf-Lafontant, T., & Augustine, D.; (1996).;; Facing racism in education.;
Harvard Educational Review, 28, 34-56.

Bigge, M.; (1982).; Learning Theories for Teachers. (4th Ed.).; New York, New York: Haper & Row.

Blackwell, P., & Diez, M.; (1998).; Toward a new vision of master’s education for
teachers.; Washington, DC:; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Borich, G.; (1991).; Effective teaching methods.; New York:; Macmillan.

Bransford, J. D. & Vye, N. J.; (1989).; A Perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction.; In Lauren B. Resnick, and Leopold E. Klopfer (eds.); (1989). Toward the Thinking Curriculum:; Current Cognitive Research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brophy, J. & Good, T. L.; (1986).; Teacher behavior and student achievement.; In M. C.Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching.; New York: Macmillan.

Churma, M. (1999). A guide to integrating technology standards in the curriculum.; Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Cocco, A.; (1995).; Computers – Teaching, technology, and applications.; Technology Directions, 55(2), 15-26.

Cornford, I. (2002).; Learning-to-learn strategies as a basis for effective lifelong learning.; International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(4), 357.

Council for Exceptional Children. (1995). What every special educator must know? The International Standards for the Preparation and Certification of Special Education Teachers. Reston Virginia: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED387 958)

Curwin, R. L. and Mendler, A. N.; (1988). Discipline with Dignity.; Alexandria, Virginia:; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Danielson, C.; (1996).; Enhancing professional practice:; A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA:; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1991). Are our teachers ready to teach? Teacher education results in; better student learning. Quality Teaching, 1, 6-7, 10.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dewey, J (1954). The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press.

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

Eggan, P., & Kauchak, D.; (2001).; Educational psychology:; Windows on classrooms.; (5th Ed.).; Upper Saddle River, NJ:; Merill:; Prentice-Hall.

Evertson, C., Emmer, E., Clements, B., & Worsham, M.; (2000).; Classroom
management for elementary teachers.; (5th Ed.).; Needham Heights:; Allyn & Bacon.

Fisher, L, Schimmel, D., & Kelly, C. (1987).Teachers and the law. New York: Longman.

Florio, R., & Detar, J.; (2002).; Teacher education and the cultural imagination. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental characterization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207-226.

Gall, M.; (1984).; Synthesis of research on teachers' questioning.; Educational Leadership, 42, (3), 40-47.

Gallagher, S. A. (1998). The road to critical thinking: The Perry scheme and meaningful differentiation. NASSP Bulletin, 82 (595), p12-20

Galloway, J. P. & Blohm, P. (1997).; Planning for Technology in the 21st Century: Perspective, Knowledge, Commitment and Process. Technology and Teacher Education Annual Journal, 1997.; Published by the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Charlottesville, VA.

Galloway, J. P. (1990).; Misconceptions of computing concepts among preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22 (4), 413—430.

Glasser, R. (1976).; Components of a psychology of instruction: Toward a science of design. Review of Educational Research, 46, (1), 1-24.

Glasser, W.; (1997).; A new look at school failure and school success.; Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 587-602.

Glasser, W.; (1998).; Choice theory.; New York:; Harper Collins.

Gollnick, D., & Chinn, P.; (2002).; Multicultural education in a pluralistic society.; New Jersey:; Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational Renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grant, C., & Gomez, M.; (Eds.) (1996).; Making schooling multicultural: Campus and Classroom.; Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Greene, M. (1993).; Freedom’s Plow: Teaching in the Multicultural Classroom.; Routledge, New York.

Griffin, G.A. (1991). Interactive staff development: Using what we know.; In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (eds.), Staff development for education in the 90’s (pp. 243-258). New York: Teachers College Press.

Guild, P.; (1994).; Making sense of learning styles.; School Administration, 51,; 8-13.

Halpern, D. (1987).; Analogies as a critical thinking skill.; In D. E. Berger, K. Pezdek, & W. P. Banks, (Eds.), Applications of cognitive psychology: Problem solving, education and computers.; Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Haney, J, Lumpe, A, Czerniak, C., & Egan, V.; (2002).; From beliefs to actions:; The beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change.; Journal of Science Teacher Eduction, 13(3), 171-187.

Harmin, M.; (1994).; Inspiring Active Learning.; Alexandria, Virginia:; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Henderson, J. G.; (1992). Reflective Teaching:; Becoming an Enquiring Educator.; Macmillan: New York.

Hernandez, H.; (2001).; Multicultural education:; A teacher’s guide to linking context, process, and content.; New Jersey:; Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Heupert, J.; (2000).; Graduation and promotion testing:; Potential benefits and risks for minority students, English-language learners and students with disabilities.; Poverty and Race (PRRAC), 9(5), 12, 5-7.

Holmes Group Report (1995).Tomorrow’s Schools for Education. East Lansing, MI: the Holmes Group

Hunter, M.; (1984).; Knowing, teaching and supervising.; In P. Hosford (Ed.). Using What We; Know About Teaching.; Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Indiana University Northwest (1995). General Education Competencies. School of Education.

Irvine, J., & Armento, B.; (2001).; Culturally responsive teaching:; Lesson planning for elementary and middle grades.; New York:; McGraw Hill.

Kindsvatter, R., Wilen, W., & Ishler, M.; (1988).; Dynamics of effective teaching.; New York:; Longman. ;;

Knapp, L. R. & Glenn, A. D. (1996). Restructuring Schools with Technology.; Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Lanier, U. (1988). Keynote address presented at the Holmes Group Conference, Washington, D.C.

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

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L.; (Eds.).; (1991).; Staff development for education in the 90’s. (2nd Ed.).; New York:; Teachers College Press.

Lever-Duffy, J., McDonald, J., & Mizell, A.; (2003).; Teaching and learning with technology.; Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Lightfoot, S.L. (1978).Worlds apart: Relationships between families and schools. New York: Basic Books.

MacDonald S. & Healy D. (1999); A Handbook for Beginning Teachers.; New York: Longman.

Many, J.; (2001).; Handbook of instructional practices for literacy teacher-educators. New Jersey:; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Molenda, M, & Harris, P.; (2001).; Issues and trends in instructional technology. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 26, 3-15.;

Moursund, D. (1990). Getting smarter at solving problems: The mind and the computer: Problem solving in the information age.; International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).; Eugene, Oregon

Muffoletto, R. (1998).; Quest for knowing: Educational media and curricular representations. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 23, p11-15.

National Council for the Accreditation of Colleges of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2002).; Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education.; Washington, DC:; Author.

Novak, J., & Purkey, W.; (2001).; Invitational education.; Phi Delta KappaEducational Foundation Fastback, 488.

Ormrod, J. (1998). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners. Columbus, Ohio: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Ormrod, J. (2003).; Educational psychology:; Developing learners.; (4th Ed.).; Upper Saddle River, NJ:; Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983).; Learning science: A generative process.; Science Education, 67 (4), 489-508.

Oskamp, S.; (2000).; Reducing prejudice and discrimination.; Mahwah, NJ:; Erlbaum.

Papalia, D., & Olds, S.; (1998).; Human development.; (7th Ed.).; Boston, Massachusetts: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.;

Paris, S.G. & Ayres, L.R. (1994). Becoming reflective students and teachers with portfolios and authentic assessment.; Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Peck, K.; (2001).; Our biggest challenge:; Proving the power of technologies in educational settings. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 26, 24-30.

Popham, W.J. (1995). Classroom Assessment: What Teachers Need to Know.; Needham Heights, M.A.: Allyn & Bacon.

Purkey, W. W. & Novak, J. M.; (1996). Inviting School Success: A Self-Concept Approach to Teaching, Learning, and Democratic Practice.;;; (Third edition).; Wadsworth:; Belmont, California.

Ramsey, P.; (1995).; Growing up with the contradictions of race and class.; Young Children, 50, 18-22.

Riley, R.; (1998).; The challenge for America:; A high quality teacher in every classroom [Annual Back-to School Address, National Press Club, Washington, DC; On-line].

Routman, R.; (2000).; Conversations:; Strategies for teaching, learning, and evaluating. Portsmouth, NH:; Heinemann.

Rowan, B., & Miller, R.; (1997).; Using research on employees’ performance to study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement.;; Sociology of Education, 70(4), 256-284.

Savoie, J. & Hughes, A. (1994).; Problem-based learning as classroom solution. Educational Leadership, 52, (3). 54-57.

Schoon, K., & Boone, W.; (1998).; Self-efficacy, alternative conceptions of science, and preservice elementary teachers.; Science Education, 82(5), 553-568.

Shavelson, R.; (1973).; What is the basic teaching skill?; Journal of Teacher Education, 24, 144-151.

Shulman, L.; (1987).; Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.; Harvard Educational Review, 19(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L.; (1989); Address given to the annual meeting of the Homes Group, Atlanta, GA.

Smith, B.O., Peterson, D., & Miccert, T. (1987).; Evaluation and professional improvement aspects of the Florida Performance Measurement System.; Educational Leadership, 44, 16-19.

Starkweather, K. N. (1997).; Are we thinking to achieve? Perspective. Technology Teacher, 57 (2) 5-6.

Stiffins, R.; (2001).; Student-involved classroom assessment.; (3rd Ed.).; Upper Saddle River, NJ:; Prentice-Hall.

Strauss, S.; (1993).; Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge about children’s minds; and learning:; Implications for...^; Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 279-291.

Takai, R.; (1993).; A different mirror:; A history of multicultural America.; New York:; Little, Brown & Company.

Tomei, L.; (1999).; Concentration and infusion – Two approaches for teaching technology for lifelong learners.; T.H.E. Journal, 26(9), 72-76.

Turnbull, A.P., & Turnbull, H.R. (1986). Families, Professionals, and Exceptionality: A Special Partnership. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

U.S. Department of Education (1994). Draft mission statement and principles of professional development. Federal Register, 59, 63773-63774.

Whimbey, A., & Lochhead, J. (1986).; Problem Solving and Comprehension. (4th ed.).; Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Wigle, S., & Manges, C. (1995).; Meaning, relevance, and purpose:; Motivational factors in quality schools.; Journal of Reality Therapy, 14, 9-14.

Wigle, S., & DeMoulin, D.; (1999).; Inclusion in a general classroom setting and self-concept.; The Journal of At-Risk Issues, 5, 27-32.

Yarger, S., & Mertens, S.K. (1980). Testing the waters of school-based teacher education.; Concepts to Guide the Education of Experienced Teachers. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Ziomek, R. (1997).; The concurrent validity of ACT's Passport Portfolio Program: Initial validity results. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Educational Research Association, Chicago. ;

Back to Top;