A Conceptual Framework for Preparing Future … Conceptual Framework for Preparing Future Educators ... Conceptual Framework for University of the ... teachers by requiring a general

February 2013

University of the

Cumberlands

Education Department

A Conceptual Framework for

Preparing Future Educators

Conceptual

Evaluative Communicative

Strategic

Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands

Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking

Page 2

Table of Contents

4.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

Character and Spiritual Values .................................................................................................................... 3

The Unit Theme ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Candidate Preparation Model....................................................................................................................... 4

Impact on P-12 Student Learning ................................................................................................................ 4

Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Vision and Mission ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Shared Vision ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Institutional Mission and Vision .................................................................................................................. 6

Unit’s Mission and Vision ........................................................................................................................... 6

4.3 The Unit’s Philosophy, Purposes, and Goals/Organizational Standards ...................................................... 7

Institutional Academic Purpose Statement .................................................................................................. 7

Philosophy, Purposes and Goals of the Unit ................................................................................................ 8

Organizational Standards/Dispositions ........................................................................................................ 8

4.4 Knowledge Bases ....................................................................................................................................... 10

Coherence and Integration of the Conceptual Framework ........................................................................ 10

Research and Support for the Conceptual Framework Theme .................................................................. 11

Research and Support for Knowledge Strands .......................................................................................... 13

4.5 Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Expectations in Standards ............................................................. 16

Alignment of the Conceptual Framework to Standards ............................................................................. 16

Diversity ..................................................................................................................................................... 16

Technology ................................................................................................................................................ 18

Online Delivery .......................................................................................................................................... 20

4.6 Description of the Unit’s Assessment System ............................................................................................ 22

a. Alignment of the Conceptual Framework to the Continuous Assessment Model ................................. 22

b. Transition Points/Key Assessments ....................................................................................................... 25

c. Process for Assuring the Unit’s Assessments are Fair, Accurate, Consistent, and Free from Bias ....... 25

d. System for Handling Candidates Who Have Not Met Unit Expectations ............................................. 27

e. Plan for Evaluating Unit Operations ...................................................................................................... 27

f. Candidate Performance on Assessments Conducted for Admission into Program ................................ 29

g. Summary of a Sample of Candidate Performance at Exit from Programs ............................................. 30

Appendix A: Assessment Pillars & Standards-Based Outcomes Tables ......................................................... 31

Appendix B: Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 43

Page 3



4.1 Overview

Character and Spiritual Values

The Education Department is dedicated to the University’s commitment to graduate men and w o m e n

with Christian values derived from spiritual and intellectual experiences. Indeed, one of the program

goals is to continue to foster and develop the appreciation and refinement of ethical and Christian

values in future educators. The Student Handbook also states, “The University expects its students

to conduct themselves, on and off the campus, in a manner which is consistent with the

objectives of the University and with its standards of conduct (p. 121, 2011-

2012). The Unit emphasizes four crucial dispositions that contribute to the character and professional

ethics of candidates. Caring, a strong work ethic, critical and creative thinking as well as a

commitment to excellence and professional integrity are assessed continuously throughout all

programs. Candidates must value the worth and dignities of all human beings, strive for excellence, and

provide educational opportunities for all as stated in Kentucky’s Code of Ethics for Educators

(Educational Professional Standards Board, 2012).

The Unit Theme

The graphic representation of the Unit Theme encompasses the entire building structure which

represents the Luecker Building where the Education Department is housed. Four steps leading into the

building represent the four knowledge strands incorporated in our Conceptual Framework depicting

the foundational process built into the Unit’s Mission and Vision. The cupola at the top of the

building is tradition to the University, and the cross at the top represents the University’s spiritual

connection and commitment to Christian values. The pillars, symbolizing the continuous

assessment checkpoints, are also a traditional architectural feature of the campus.

Page 4



Candidate Preparation Model

University of the Cumberlands is committed to excellence in educator preparation. The Unit’s mission

supports this commitment by providing strong educational programs that will help candidates develop the

knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences

through Critical Thinking. Consequently, the Unit’s Candidate Preparation Model (Figure 1) presents a

graphic representation of how collectively, all parties and components of our programs impact P-12

student learning.

Impact on P-12 Student Learning

Through its Mission and Vision, the Unit strives to produce educators who are prepared for the

profession and who possess a well-developed knowledge, philosophy, and understanding of education,

thus having a direct impact on student learning. Candidates are guided through courses and field

experiences which enable them to demonstrate their understanding and commitment to a strong work

ethic, critical and creative thinking, as well as a commitment to excellence and professional integrity.

The Unit is committed to preparing candidates to serve students of varying ability levels, socio-

economic levels, cultural backgrounds, and achievement levels.

Teacher effectiveness and student learning are a mandate for all schools serving P-12 students.

Research has shown that teachers receiving certification after completing a teacher education program

emphasizing core academic skills, subject knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge and skills develop

students who score higher on academic achievement tests than teachers failing to receive the same level

of training in these areas (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin & Heilig,

2005). Darling-Hammond states that practicing strategies in classroom settings are essential to effective

teacher education programs (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden 2007). The Unit prepares effective

teachers by requiring a general education curriculum, subject coursework, and

pedagogical training and practical experiences.

Page 5



The Unit also emphasizes Conceptual, Strategic, Evaluative and Communicative Knowledge as basic

components necessary for effective educators desiring to have a positive impact on student learning.

Candidates develop into effective educators through the acquisition of these four strands of

knowledge during coursework, field experiences, student teaching, or practicum.

Additionally, Linda Darling-Hammond and Joan Baratz-Snowden (2007) state that “teachers hone their skills when they undergo a process of learning, experimenting, and reflecting on their practice with feedback from peers and more-expert practitioners. This process strengthens their ability

to implement new approaches and fine-tune their efforts to produce student achievement gains,” (p.

118). Educator preparation programs help provide the training for effective instruction

in the classroom. A study of teacher preparation effectiveness in Houston, Texas, revealed that

uncertified teachers and those in most other non-standard certification categories had negative effects on

student learning. Those teachers who did not pass state teacher certification tests also had negative

effects on student achievement (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, and Heilig,

2005). Thus, the Unit maintains that educator preparation programs at University of the Cumberlands

provide candidates with best practice curricula and standards-based learner tasks that contribute to

student learning in schools. The Continuous Assessment Plan, explained in Element 4.6, provide

evidence of how major tasks and outcomes of University of the Cumberlands’ Initial and Advanced

educator programs impact P-12 learning.

Summary

The Conceptual Framework contains the alignment of the Unit’s theme of Reflective

Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking and its four strands of

Conceptual, Strategic, Evaluative, and Communicative Knowledge to learner outcomes and

achievements based on Kentucky Teacher Standards, ISLLC standards for administrators, Kentucky

Standards for School Counselors, Kentucky Chore Academic Standards, Characteristics of Highly

Effective Teaching and Learning (CHETL), and relevant Specialized Professional Associations

(SPAs). Online programs, as well as on-site programs, also are purposefully aligned with the

conceptual framework. A continuous assessment model in both initial and advanced programs outlines

how the Unit evaluates candidates based on their professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions and

how these directly affect P-12 student learning. Additionally, the set of professional dispositions and

the set of outcomes for diversity

and technology are embedded in the four knowledge strands of the Unit’s Conceptual

Framework. Propelled by a core set of values with a mission and vision to instill a strong work ethic

in Christian values and moral integrity, the Unit’s Conceptual Framework and Continuous Assessment

Plan provide a foundation based on the constructivist’s for faculty to prepare or improve responsible

educational leaders who will effectively and positively impact student learning.

4.2 Vision and Mission

Shared Vision

Since its founding in 1889 as the Williamsburg Institute, University of the Cumberlands has

envisioned higher education as an avenue to improved living for the young people of the Kentucky

mountains. In 1913, the Williamsburg Institute combined with Highland College and changed its

name to Cumberland College. Recently, in 2005, the institution’s name changed again to University

of the Cumberlands (hereafter, “UC). Throughout its existence, UC has always sought to graduate

men and women with Christian values derived from spiritual and intellectual experiences within the

University community as well as from the traditional academic disciplines. The University is also

Page 6



committed to a liberal arts education. In the belief that freedom is the result of respect for truth and

concern for humanity, UC, through a traditional liberal arts program, attempts to foster in its students a

heightened awareness of sensitivity to the search for truth and a deepened responsibility toward

humanity. The historical tradition and the present reality are affirmed in the University’s Mission

Statement. Institutional Mission and Vision

Mission: University of the Cumberlands has historically served students primarily, but not exclusively,

from the beautiful mountain regions of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Virginia, Georgia, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio and Alabama which have traditionally been described as Appalachia.

The University's impact can be seen in the achievements of its graduates who have assumed roles of

leadership in this region and throughout the nation.

While located in the resort like area of Appalachia, with emphasis primarily on serving the beautiful

mountain area, the university now reaches into every state and around the world through its student

body and alumni.

UC continues to offer promising students of all backgrounds a broad based liberal arts program

enriched with Christian values. The University strives for excellence in all of its endeavors and expects

from students a similar dedication to this pursuit. Its commitment to a strong academic program is

joined with a commitment to a strong work ethic. UC encourages students to think critically and

creatively so that they may better prepare themselves for lives of responsible service and

leadership. This focus of its undergraduate programs is extended and extrapolated into its graduate

programs. These programs also nurture critical and creative thinking in pursuit of the “life-more-

abundant” for both the individual and society. At UC, graduate study prepares professionals to be

servant-leaders in their disciplines and communities, linking research with practice and knowledge

with ethical decision-making.

Vision: The purpose statement for the University of the Cumberlands is congruent with its mission in

offering quality academic programs with Christian values to candidates of all backgrounds. The

foundation of all of our programs at the University of the Cumberlands is our desire to nurture an

increased awareness of the pre-eminence of the spiritual dimensions of human life through an

appreciation of our historic Christian heritage, as well as through an understanding of Biblical truth

and religious values as they apply to daily life.

Unit’s Mission and Vision

In the Unit, the most important professional outcomes for graduates are the possession of a well-

developed philosophy and understanding of education, as well as positive dispositions that help all

students learn. Candidates’ philosophies reflect conceptual, strategic, evaluative, and communicative

knowledge.

The principal goal at University of the Cumberlands is to provide learning experiences that

enable graduates to become so proficient in ethical deliberation that they can use their reflective-

critical thinking and problem-solving skills to become productive members of a democratic society.

They reflect dedication and service in their sensitivity to and tolerance of the values and aspiration of

all members of our society (Dewey, 1974; Glasser, 1990; Hinck & Brandell, 1999; Bandura, 2001;

Palmer, 2004).

To enhance the candidates’ ability to provide for diverse populations, multiple experiences in culturally

and economically diverse settings are essential. These experiences make candidates aware of

dispositions which will result in effective learning environments. The overall purpose or goal of the

Page 7



Unit supports the University’s purpose to provide quality learning experiences to its candidates. Our

mission statement reaffirms this belief, accurately portraying our commitment to preparing educators

for careers in education.

Mission. The Unit will provide strong initial and advanced academic programs to teacher

candidates and other school personnel that instill in them a commitment to a strong work ethic and

prepare them for lives committed to excellence, professional integrity, and leadership that will impact

student learning. By being Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical

Thinking, graduates will possess the knowledge, skills, dispositions and spiritual values that will serve

the needs of a diverse learning community.

Inspired by this mission, the Unit prepares candidates for the future, especially for the challenges of

impacting student learning. The Unit’s vision is to provide quality programs based on “Best Practice”

strategies and knowledge. The Unit has, therefore, developed the following vision statement.

Vision. The Unit will prepare teacher candidates and other school personnel to be Reflective

Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking and subsequently provide

them with academic and practical experiences. Graduates will possess well-developed philosophies

that will reflect conceptual, strategic, evaluative, and communicative knowledge as well as an

understanding of technology that will help them meet the needs of diverse populations.

The Conceptual Framework Theme communicates the Unit’s vision: Reflective Constructors of Quality

Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking. Meaningful experiences are crucial in student

learning. Before candidates can become effective learners and/or educators , those

experiences must focus their attention on and refine their dispositions on learning tasks. Their

attention and dispositions must be actively engaged in the task (Dewey, 1974; Glasser, 1990; Hinck &

Brandell, 1999; Bandura, 2001; Palmer, 2004).

Because of the rural nature of the student body, our exclusively on-campus delivery system has both

prevented many students from enrolling in our programs and caused personal and professional

challenges for students currently enrolled. In its mission to serve students in Appalachia, the Unit has

incorporated an online delivery of graduate courses. The online delivery offering allows students

the flexibility to take graduate course work that fits their professional and personal goals and

schedules. Further, it allows the University to address the chronic shortage of teachers in our service

region by enabling college graduates throughout underserved portions of Kentucky, Tennessee and

beyond to earn teacher certification. The online delivery does not impact the content of the

curriculum. The curricular requirements for both online and on-site offerings remain the same

regardless of the method of delivery. The University’s online programing has been accredited by the

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

4.3 The Unit’s Philosophy, Purposes, and Goals/Organizational Standards

Institutional Academic Purpose Statement

The purpose statement for University of the Cumberlands is consistent with its mission of

offering quality academic programs with Christian values to students of all backgrounds. The

purpose statement appears as follows in the UC catalog: The foundation of all of our programs at University of the Cumberlands is our desire to nurture an

increased awareness of the pre-eminence of the spiritual dimensions of human life through an

appreciation of our historic Christian heritage, as well as through an understanding of Biblical truth

and religious values as they apply to daily life. The University’s mission to offer “a broad- based

Page 8



liberal arts program enriched with Christian values” is evidenced in our General Education

curriculum. Along with the University’s other programs, this curriculum attempts to foster in students

“a heightened awareness and sensitivity to the search for truth and a deepened responsibility toward

humankind.” Collectively, the courses taken to fulfill the requirements of the six sections of the

General Education curriculum are intended to provide a breadth of information, an understanding of

critical concepts, and a mastery of skills to support a life-long pursuit not only of professional

achievement but also of “responsible service and leadership.” These endeavors are rooted in an

open exchange of ideas within and among academic disciplines and are framed by a Christian

sense of responsibility toward self, toward society, and toward God.

Philosophy, Purposes and Goals of the Unit

University of the Cumberlands’ tradition of providing “a strong academic program…with a

commitment to a strong work ethic” and its goal of “preparing…students for lives committed to

excellence, professional integrity, and leadership” are imbedded in a conceptual framework for initial

and advanced programs preparing teachers and other school personnel. The theme, Reflective

Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking, accurately portrays the

Department of Education’s philosophy that teachers, along with other education professionals, have

a responsibility to ensure the welfare and enrichment of society. The quality and dispositions of

teachers are primary in the growth and preservation of society. Consequently, both the public and the

teaching profession demand that those entering the profession be fully qualified to accept the

responsibility of being a teacher or other school professional. They must be highly qualified,

knowledgeable, and caring education professionals. Acknowledging that all children can learn, the

Unit is committed to providing training and experiences using research- based “Best Practices” for

teacher education candidates.

The Unit is not the only department involved in teacher preparation. The collaboration of faculty from

other content areas is essential. Hence, the Unit works closely with other university faculty in devising

courses and curricula that provide content information needed for teacher and school personnel

candidates. University faculty participate in departmental faculty meetings and receive copies of the

departmental meeting agendas and minutes. They are also represented on the governance

committees – The Teacher Education Admissions Committee (TEAC) for initial programs and

the Graduate Education Committee (GEC) for advanced programs. It is through these collaborative

activities that program changes are proposed, discussed and approved. In addition, several departments

house teacher-preparation courses. All faculty helping to prepare teacher candidates for careers in

teaching hold Unit membership.

Organizational Standards/Dispositions

Researched for decades has been the relationship of effective teaching to dispositions,

“professional attitudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal and non-verbal behaviors

as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and communities” (NCATE, 2008, pp. 89-90.)

The Unit makes the dispositions of teacher candidates a primary focus because “the quality and

dispositions of our teachers is of primary importance to the growth and preservation of our society”

(University of the Cumberlands Catalog, 2011-2012, p. 63). The most effect ive teachers possess

at t i tudes and beliefs that distinguish them from less effective teachers (Phelps, 2006).

Page 9



Thornton (2006) concluded that the most effective teachers exhibit “key dispositions that impacted,

even determined how content knowledge and pedagogical skills came to life within the classroom” (p.

66). Thornton also found that further research is needed to determine the role of teacher dispositions

upon effective teaching. Against the backdrop of this salient finding, Helm proposes that proper

teacher dispositions, appropriate training, and certification can have a positive impact on student

learning (Helm, 2006; Helm, 2007). Teachers who are caring and nurturing are more effective and

have students who are more motivated and excel academically (Talbert-Johnson, 2006).

In spring 2002, a committee consisting of UC faculty and public school teachers examined the

dispositions of effective teachers and candidates. The committee held that candidates in teacher

education should be caring adults who display a strong work ethic, who engage in critical and creative

thinking, and who strive for excellence and professional integrity. University Standards eleven (11)

and twelve (12) were created to assess these four dispositions. Unit faculty nurture dispositions in

candidates through coursework, interactions, interviews, and evaluations. These qualities are also

modeled by University faculty in courses and by public school teachers during field experiences,

student teaching, and practicum. Modeling, by example and reflection, and using case studies are

effective ways of shaping candidates’ dispositions (Phelps, 2006).

Candidates are shown that teachers embrace these dispositions in classrooms. These dispositions have

been defined with descriptors and characteristics with which to evaluate candidates. Table 4.3.1

presents the relationship of the Conceptual Framework, Kentucky Teacher Standards, and ISLLC

standards to the four dispositions the Unit has identified as crucial to its educator preparation program.

Table 4.3.1. Relationship of Conceptual Framework and Standards to Dispositions

Disposition CF Standard Assessment Instruments

Caring

Has a positive attitude

Is cooperative

Is respectful of others

Establishes rapport with

diverse populations

Conceptual

Strategic Evaluative

Communicative

Kentucky Teacher Standards

2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,

University of the Cumberlands

11, 12

ISLLC Standards

2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Kentucky Counselor Standards

1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Instructor-Assessed

Dispositions

Self-Assessment of

Dispositions

Faculty Evaluations

Recommendations (for

programs admissions)

Field Experience

Supervisor Feedback

Student Teacher

Evaluations from

University Coordinator

Student Teacher

Evaluations from

Supervising Teacher

Portfolio Evaluations

Recommendations/

Strong Work Ethic

Has high expectations for

self

Is dependable

Is timely in completing

responsibilities

Is a self-starter; takes

initiative

Conceptual

Communicative

KY Teacher Standards

2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10


11, 12

ISLLC Standards

ALL


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Critical and Creative

Thinking

Is flexible

Provides for all learners

Expresses thoughts and

ideas clearly

Demonstrates ability to

problem solve

Conceptual

Strategic

Evaluative

Communicative


ALL


11, 12

ISLLC Standards

ALL

Kentucky Counselor Standards -

ALL

Page 10



Commitment to

Excellence/ Professional

Integrity

Has a professional

appearance

Uses technology

effectively Demonstrates

leadership abilities Uses

appropriate spoken &

written English

Conceptual

Strategic

Evaluative

Communicative


2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10


11, 12

ISLLC Standards

ALL


1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Commendation Forms

Dispositions are assessed at several junctures in our continuous assessment model. The assessments are

systematic and supportive of the Unit’s pillars for both initial and advanced programs. By monitoring

candidate dispositions as they progress through the Pillars, the Unit assists candidates in identifying

problems or pitfalls in their professional development. Indeed, candidate dispositions are assessed

by instructors in professional education courses, in teacher education entrance interviews, and by

supervising teachers in the field and in student teaching experiences. Recommendation forms, self-

evaluations, portfolio/eportfolio entries, interviews, and feedback from public school personnel provide

documentation of the university candidates’ dispositions.

These multiple points of disposition evaluation provide data used to implement program improvement

and apprise the candidate of dispositional strengths and growth areas. The addition of dispositions to

the Kentucky Teacher Standards and the Sp ec i a l P r o fe s s i on a l As so c i a t i on ( SP A)

standards is consistent with the Unit’s belief that candidates must have positive dispositions and that

continuous feedback from multiple sources facilitates dispositional growth.

4.4 Knowledge Bases

Coherence and Integration of the Conceptual Framework

To ensure that the teacher candidates at University of the Cumberlands become Reflective

Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking, the education program

provides a structure that is supported by four strands of knowledge: conceptual, strategic, evaluative,

and communicative. One’s existing knowledge is the foundation of all future learning. All previous

experiences color and filter all new experiences (Alexander & Murphy, 1995). Simply stated,

knowledge that learners previously possess is an extremely powerful force in what is valued as

relevant or important as well as in what is comprehended and remembered (Piaget, 1953; Kolb, 1984;

Alexander, Jetton, Kulikowich, & Woehler, 1994; Alverman, Smith, & Readence, 1985; Anderson,

Pichert, & Shirey, 1983; Anderson, Reynolds, Schallert, & Goetz, 1977; Gibson, 1966; Kolb &

Kolb, 2005; Murphy & Alexander, 2006).

The Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS), the S pec i a l P ro fes s io na l Ass oc i a t i o n ( S PA)

standards and University of the Cumberlands’ Standards are embedded in the four strands of

knowledge comprising our Conceptual Framework. Also interwoven throughout these four

strands and throughout all components of the curriculum are diversity and technology.

The knowledge strands that support the Unit Theme (Conceptual, Strategic, Evaluative, and

Communicative), contribute to the knowledge-base of educators. Knowing foundational concepts,

Page 11



forming teaching strategies based on those concepts, evaluating the effectiveness of the strategy, and

then communicating the results to all stakeholders are the foundation of Reflective Constructors of

Quality Learning Experiences.

The Unit continues to identify the merits and liabilities of the theme and its knowledge strands. In

addition, the notion of critical thinking is vitally important and is a major strand and expectation in the

Kentucky Teacher Standards as well as in University of the Cumberlands’ Quality Enhancement Plan

(QEP).

Research and Support for the Conceptual Framework Theme

Research and “Best Practices” undergird the Unit Theme. Literature identifies all components of the

theme as being linked to effective teaching and learning. Research-based evidence appears below to

reinforce the phrasing “Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical

Thinking.”

Reflective. Teaching is more than just implementing techniques and strategies. It involves many hours

of research into best practice strategies, action research, and teachers modeling desired behavior in the

classroom (Chant, Heafner & Bennett, 2004). To be truly dynamic professionals, educators must first

become effective. One way to develop the attributes of a dynamic professional is through

reflection upon practice. According to Nietho (2003), “Excellent teachers do not emerge full blown at graduation. Instead, teachers are always in the process of becoming. Given the dynamics of

their work, they need to continuously rediscover who they are and what they stand for … through

deep reflection about their craft” (p. 395-396). Reflections are critical to a candidate’s development as

an educator and add a critical dimension to the educational process (Romano, 2005; Uline, Wilson, &

Cordry, 2004).

The impact of reflection on one’s learning and/or education experience must begin early in the

candidate’s preparation. Research has shown that reflective processes in teacher education have

significant effects on the cognitive development of pre-service teachers (Dunkin Precians, &

Nettle, 1994; Stiggins, 2001; Mac Suibhne, 2009). Doubtless, reflection requires critical thought, self-

awareness, intellectual and practical energy, problem-solving and personal knowledge.

Reflection may be defined in a variety of ways. Rodgers (2002) maintains that “…it might be

taught, learned, assessed, discussed, and researched, and evolve in both meaning and usefulness (p.

844). Amobi (2006) adds, “The ideas of the foregoing proponents of a paradigm shift to emphasis

on highly qualified teaching subsumed two interrelated points of view: (a) the continuing and

unending nature of the process of learning to teach well, and (b) the quintessential need

for reflection as the lighthouse of enlightening the path of every-maturing and self-renewing growth

in teaching” (p. 25).

Reflections are also a way to determine how a candidate’s personal understanding impacts curricular

actions (Chant, Heafner, & Bennet, 2004). Reflections provide useful data that may be the driving

force in educational decision-making and teacher actions. Two of the most popular vehicles for

recording reflections are writing assignments and reflective analysis of teachers in classroom settings

(Amobi, 2006.)

Writing assignments can be linked directly to specific learning ideals and outcomes that directly relate

to time management, classroom discipline, assessments, cultural diversity, and/or accommodations for

students with special needs. Candidates may be taught to write on their perception of the effectiveness

of educators in these areas. They may also be asked to observe teachers in classrooms and write

reflections based on their observations (Uline, Wilson, & Cordry 2004).

The term “reflective” has been incorporated into the unit theme not only because reflection is

linked to the success of teachers, but because reflection is a concept and skill that must be taught,

Page 12



understood, and implemented throughout the entire education candidate’s preparation. The Unit

concurs with Spalding and Wilson’s (2002) conclusion that educators must deliberately teach

reflection if they want students to reflect, not just simply assign reflective writing assignments.

Constructivism. The Constructivist Theory is incorporated into the Conceptual Framework Theme

because the Unit believes the learner constructs knowledge based upon personal experiences,

beliefs, and pre-existing mental structures. The teacher is no longer the active transmitter of

knowledge, and the student is no longer the passive receiver. Knowledge is the tentative and relative

result of the learner’s own mental actions (Van Huizen, Van Oers, & Wubbels, 2005; Goubeaud &

Yan, 2004). John Dewey, the theorist most commonly associated with Constructivism, advances this

idea that students construct an understanding of concepts based upon their own experiences or through

the process of thinking or reflection (Dewey, 1974). Piaget might also have agreed with this

theory by arguing that students construct schema or cognitive structures that help them generate their

own rules and mental models, which they then use to make sense of their experiences, both past and

present (Chicoine, 2004).

The concepts of constructivism and performance-based assessment in today’s classrooms are crucial

in the preparation of future teachers (Goubeaud & Yan, 2004). Constructivists contend that the teacher

is the facilitator in the classroom, rather than merely the deliverer of information. The degree to which

students are actively participating in the learning process is critical to their success (Chicoine, 2004;

Goubeaud & Yan, 2004; Palmer, Rowell, & Brooks, 2005). The learners must be actively

constructing rather than passively receiving information (Jonassen, 1991; Phillips, 1995; Weiner,

2002).

Directly linked to student learning and achievement are quality learning experiences that, therefore,

appear in the Conceptual Framework theme (Dewey, 1974; Dunkin Precians, & Nettle, 1994;

Stiggins, 2001; Nietho, 2003; Uline, Wilson & Cordry, 2004; Romano, 2005; Phelps, 2006; Mac

Suibhne, 2009). Likewise, a successful teacher must reflect upon what is taught and what is learned so

the impact on student learning is evident.

People come to situations with knowledge they have gained from past experiences. This knowledge

then influences the development, understanding, implementation, and construction of new knowledge.

Hence, constructivism relates to past experience and is forward-looking into how the world might

be rather than how the world is (Chicoine, 2004). According to Palmer et al. (2005), “The main

proposition of constructivism is that learning means constructing, creating, inventing, and developing

our own knowledge,” (p. 196).

Constructivism incorporates the principles of conceptual or cognitive development from Piaget as

well as the principles of social cognition and the zone of proximal development from

Vygotsky. It forms the theoretical foundations of interactive learning and cognitive strategic

instruction (Harris & Pressley, 1991; Graves, 2001). “Learners construct their own understanding

rather than having it delivered or transmitted to them,” (Kauchak & Eggen, 1998, p. 9). Vygotsky’s

social and learning theory states that students learn through interactions with other people. His key

principle, the zone of proximal development, emerges from the belief that students engaged in

independent activities that are too complex or advanced for their knowledge base learn best by working

in a collaborative setting with more knowledgeable peers or individuals (Palmer et al, 2005). It is with

this base of understanding that collaborated learning formats are included both in face-to-face classes

and with our online courses. Additionally, the students are encouraged to begin thinking of themselves

as pre-professionals and working professionals. During the course work they construct knowledge in

community settings whether on campus or within the virtual community.

Page 13



Quality Learning Experiences. The Unit theme also refers to Learning Experiences. Only through

quality learning experiences does the constructivist theory work. Based on this belief, it is imperative

that educators and students generate substantial evidence that supports teaching and learning

effectiveness (Maheady, Jabot, Rey & Michielli-Pendl, 2007). Programs are designed to support the

above authors’ statements, “High quality teaching is highly dependent on a thorough understanding of

content, context, and human development, as well as high standards of professionalism” (p.

25).

The value of quality learning experiences is also e mbedded in constructivism as defined by

Dewey and Vygotsky: “For Dewey, a better quality of experience for people has

everything to do with their growth in rich and fruitful ways as individuals and as a community”

(Meadows, 2006, p. 4). Vygotsky’s theory centers on the zone of proximal development and is

supported by several researchers (e.g., Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996;

Putnam & Borko, 2000; Chaiklin, 2003) in their argument that quality learning experiences must

include the study of cognition and learning in the physical and social environment in which learners

participate. Quality Learning Experiences reflect the ongoing application of constructivism, the essence

of reflection and critical thinking.

The entire curriculum and learning/field experiences incorporate diversity so that candidates develop a

global awareness of diverse student populations. Candidates are exposed to a variety of experiences

that prepare them to meet the needs of a diverse student population (Valentin, 2006). These

experiences include case studies, observations, interactive experiences, excursions to urban schools or

instructional settings with diverse populations, working with exceptional students, and purposeful,

interactive campus international events.

Critical Thinking. Critical thinking is a vital component of teaching and learning. Not only must

teachers think critically when they teach; they must also help their students to develop critical

thinking skills. Besides teaching students how to use critical thinking skills, educators must nurture

in them the desire to use these skills. They must make the connection from thinking to

implementation: “Critical thinking has conceptual connections with reflective judgment, problem

framing, higher order thinking, logical thinking, decision-making, problem solving and the scientific

method” (Giancarlo & Facione, 2001, p. 29). Thus, students must develop dispositions to use critical

thinking in situations where the skill is warranted (Halpern, 2000; Abrami et al, 2008).

Halpern also states, “There are identifiable critical thinking skills that can be taught and learned, and

when students learn these skills and apply them appropriately, they become better thinkers” (p. 70). It

is important, therefore, to include critical thinking skills (Elder, 2005). Objectives for students should

be goal-oriented, specific and measurable. They should involve the kind of thinking that centers on

“solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions” (Halpern,

1999, p. 70). In this way, students can begin to develop dispositions to think critically in

situations that warrant that skill.

The notion of Critical Thinking in the Unit theme helps define what knowledge, skills, and dispositions

successful educators must possess. The critical thinking emphasis also supports the Kentucky Teacher

Standards and the campus-wide curricular strands of University of the Cumberlands’ Quality

Enhancement Plan (QEP), which became a foundational instrument used in the 2006 re-accreditation

process with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACs) (UC QEP Document, 2006).

Research and Support for Knowledge Strands

All forms of knowledge are fluid, dynamic, and interactive. The presence or activation of one form

of knowledge can directly or indirectly influence other forms of knowledge (Alexander, Schallert,

Page 14



& Hare, 1991). In essence, the knowledge base is the total of all an individual knows and believes. The

knowledge base is not constructed solely of factual or schooled content stored and organized in

memory but is integrated with the knowledge the learner already possesses, which is often

acquired from nonacademic life experiences (Gardner, 1991). Recognizing that there are different

forms of knowledge, the Unit has identified four different types (strands) of knowledge that educator

preparation programs must address. Indeed, these four different types of knowledge are the

foundational supporting strands of the Conceptual Framework: Conceptual Knowledge, Strategic

Knowledge, Evaluative Knowledge, and Communicative Knowledge. Conceptual Knowledge. The first strand, Conceptual Knowledge, represents an individual’s knowledge of concepts and ideas. Specifically, Conceptual Knowledge requires an understanding of the concepts embedded in the subject area that is being taught. (Hogan, Rabinowitz, & Craven, 2003). Conceptual Knowledge is also rich in relationships and understanding and cannot be learned by rote, but by thoughtful, reflective learning (Rittle-Johnson & Alibali, 1999). Conceptual Knowledge surfaces in at least five different forms: concrete, abstract, verbal, non- verbal, and process-oriented. Conceptual Knowledge can also be labeled or categorized as content knowledge, domain knowledge, discipline knowledge, and discourse knowledge (Alexander, Schallert, & Hare, 1991). These four categories still adhere to the notion that Conceptual Knowledge is a connected web of knowledge that links relationships to discrete facts (Rittle-Johnson & Alibali, 1999). As candidates acquire Conceptual Knowledge from their professional education core courses and from classes in their chosen field, they develop a conceptual understanding of philosophy, theory, and instructional techniques that set the foundation for higher learning and critical thinking. Strategic Knowledge. The second of the four strands represents Strategic Knowledge, which identifies intentional actions selected to achieve specific goals. Strategies are used to execute and accomplish the learning processes. Strategic Knowledge includes all reflective deliberation of learning situations that require metacognitive processes in relation to one’s Conceptual Knowledge. University of the Cumberlands’ goal is to provide multidimensional learning experiences in all programs that encourage candidates to continually test and refine their views of teaching and learning (Moss, 1997). At the same time, candidates develop learning strategies that enable them to monitor and reflect upon their own learning experiences. Specifically, this strategic approach is applied to the planning of goals for implementation of lessons, procedures, and instruction executed in the classroom (Alexander & Judy, 1988). Professional education course work emphasizes strategies appropriate for a diverse population. Becoming strategic learners enables candidates to realize the role of being Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking. Research findings reveal that a direct relationship exists between educator preparation programs instilling Strategic Knowledge and higher student scores. According to a number of studies, “students’ achievement is significantly related to whether their teachers are fully prepared or certified in the field they teach, after other teacher and student characteristics are controlled” (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005, p.25). Courses focusing on Strategic Knowledge are content oriented; students gain knowledge within various content areas, and begin to develop strategic ways in which to integrate this knowledge into instruction, assessment, and supervision. Evaluative Knowledge. The third strand of University of the Cumberlands’ conceptual framework is Evaluative Knowledge. Because teachers spend more than half of their day in designing assessment activities (Plake, 1993), it is vitally important that candidates know how to develop and implement evaluations. Assessment involves evidence gathering and instructional decision making to see how instruction impacts student learning (Heritage, 2007; Moore, 2006). Teachers need a clear understanding of these processes. Also, assessment must align with instructional goals. The acquisition of Evaluative Knowledge is a continuous process, which provides skills to effectively develop evaluations and to accurately link assessment to effective instruction. Neill (2006) states that researchers have found that effective formative assessments have a strong

Page 15



impact on student achievement, especially that of low-achieving students. Therefore, the Unit prepares

candidates to become critically reflective teachers and evaluators through knowledge of a variety of

evaluative tools, techniques, and processes. These assessment methods include standardized testing,

curriculum-based assessment, observation, feedback, critical self and peer reflection, and consultation

or conferencing (Barry, 1994; Gronlund & Linn, 1990; Reeves, 2007; Westwood, 2008).

Just as knowledge is a discovery process empowering learners through exercise of intelligence

(Gardner, 1983), discussion promotes and affects attitudes (Vygotsky, 1997) for a wide spectrum of

student outcomes. Educators should be aware of and use multiple and alternative means of

assessing and evaluating student outcomes in ways that are standardized, performance-based,

continuous, and authentic. Performance-based assessments are consistent with the constructivist

learning process and are usually considered more authentic than traditional assessments

(Wiggins, 1998; Stiggins, 2002). Since assessment is ongoing, reciprocal, and systematic, University of

the Cumberlands prepares candidates to be multi-dimensional evaluators in approach and disposition,

and to become educators who make appropriate provisions for assessment processes that address

cognitive, social, cultural, and physical diversity. Evaluative Knowledge is modeled and nurtured

through course work which concentrates on further integration of knowledge as well as on evaluation

and assessment.

Communicative Knowledge. McGlinn (2003) agrees regarding the importance of learning how to

communicate. She contends that students “must have the opportunity to articulate … beliefs and the

university supervisor and the cooperating teacher must allow those beliefs to shape the focus of

observations and conferencing” (p. 144). In its broadest sense, Communicative Knowledge is

introduced in the first course in the professional education course sequence for initial programs.

EDUC 235, Basic Concepts Concerning Education, engages candidates in a field experience

component. They must observe teachers in educational settings and must communicate with these

teachers and their University professors through written and/or verbal reflection and analysis. This

communication is carried through in the candidates’ course sequence. Instructors of these courses and

school faculty must develop a strong collaborative relationship and ongoing communication to ensure

the effectiveness of the field experience (Allsopp, DeMarie, Alvarez- McHatton, & Doone, 2006).

Communication is essential during the student teaching or practicum experience as candidates

synthesize Conceptual, Strategic, and Evaluation knowledge in order to communicate knowledge to

others. New knowledge and collective thinking are encouraged as student teachers or practicum

candidates are required to collaborate with peers and public school personnel (Schmoker, 2006). To

ensure that learning experiences during this phase are quality ones, University of the Cumberlands

follows the guidelines for placement with care. Added to the requirements outlined by the Kentucky

Education Professional Standards Board, the Unit maintains ongoing dialogues with public

school supervising teachers in which goals, expectations, and portfolio components are

discussed. Using the Kentucky Teacher Intern Program Intern Performance Record (KTIP-IPR)

observation document, University Coordinators evaluate student and practicum teachers during at least

two of the four formal observations in the fourteen-week teaching semester. They then hold

conferences with the student teachers to communicate the results of their observations. Courses in advanced programs require candidates to articulate Communicative knowledge into actual

instruction. Candidates implement the knowledge that they have gained and then reflect upon the

process as well as the results. Thus, candidates communicate what they have learned in the form of

effective classroom instruction. Indeed, Britzman (1991) states that learning to teach is a social process

of negotiation rather than an individual problem of behavior. Field and clinical experiences at the

advanced level employ all of the appropriate Kentucky and National standards.

Page 16



4.5 Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Expectations in Standards

Alignment of the Conceptual Framework to Standards

The Unit theme, “Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical

Thinking” and its four encompassing knowledge strands (Conceptual, Strategic, Evaluative and

Communicative) are derived from candidate proficiencies and outcomes pertaining to the

standards governing initial and advanced programs. The Conceptual Framework and its

alignment with program standards help ensure that candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills and

dispositions that help all students learn. In tandem, they also guide Unit faculty and all

stakeholders in program evaluations and data-based program improvement decisions. Table 4.5.1

represents how each strand of the Conceptual Framework aligns with performance standards.

Table 4.5.1. Conceptual Framework Alignment with Standards for Initial & Advanced Programs Knowledge Strand KY Teacher Standards ISLLC KSC

Conceptual 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, UC 11, 12 I, II, III, IV, V, VI 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Strategic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, UC 11, 12 I, II, III, V 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12

Evaluative 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 8, 10, UC 11 I, II, III, V 4, 7, 8, 11, 12

Communicative 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, UC 12 I, III, IV, VI 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Diversity

Diversity is central to the mission of the University and Education Department as shown in the

University Mission Statement: University of the Cumberlands offers “students of all backgrounds a

broad based liberal arts program enriched with Christian values” (University of the Cumberlands

Catalog, 2011-2012, p. 3). The Education Department strives to reinforce in students the responsibility

of the teaching profession “to ensure that the welfare of society is safeguarded and enhanced”

(University of the Cumberlands Catalog 2011-2012, p. 85). A conceptual knowledge base and varied

learning experiences are essential to an understanding of and tolerance for diverse perspectives and

fundamental morals.

The entire curriculum and learning/field experiences incorporate diversity so that candidates develop a

global awareness of diverse student populations. Candidates are exposed to a variety of experiences

that prepare them to meet the needs of a diverse student population (Valentin, 2006). These

experiences include case studies, observations, interactive experiences, excursions to urban schools or

instructional settings with diverse populations, working with exceptional students, and purposeful,

interactive campus international events. These experiences include case studies, observations, and

interactive experiences that are authentic, real-life student scenarios. Students are exposed to field

experiences in student teaching, practicums, and internships. These intentional and purposeful experiences

are designed to explore the rich diversity found in the school population. For example, UC students work

with students with special needs, urban schools providing instruction for students from various racial and

ethnic backgrounds, and all Socio-economic levels. Students explore first hand instructional strategies

that will address the barriers to learning experienced by such diverse populations. In addition, UC

students participate and interact with the international students experiencing the diversity and richness of

their culture. Self-awareness and reflection instill within candidates the ability to develop an understanding of and

sensitivity to diverse student populations. Candidates become concerned for promoting

social justice through equity for all students (Garmon, 2006). Candidates learn the importance of

Page 17



educating diverse learners by welcoming, supporting, and preparing successful learning opportunities

for all students (Barnes, 2006). Table 4.5.2 illustrates program outcomes, as well as evidence that

diversity is addressed in both initial and advanced programs.

Table 4.5.2. Diversity – Program Outcomes and Major Sources of Evidence

KY

Teacher

Std.

ISLLC

Std.

Course Program Outcomes Major Sources of Evidence

2 II, IV Initial Advanced

EDUC 237 EDUC 698

ELEM 237 EDUC 699

ELMS 237 READ 630

SPED 237 READ 631

EDUC 492 READ 632

EDUC 493

SPED 499

ELEM 430

ELMS 430

EDUC 432

All Student Teaching Sections

Designs lesson plans

that include and

specify strategies and

instruction that meet

the needs of all

learners.

Written Lesson

Plans Portfolio

Entries Standard

Based Units

Lesson plan with methodologies

that work with minority groups.

3 I, IV Initial Advanced

EDUC 237 EDUC 635

ELEM 237

ELMS 237

SPED 237

ELEM 430

ELMS 430

EDUC432

All student teaching sections

Establishes a learning

environment based on the

needs and backgrounds of

all students.

Communicates high

expectations for all

learners.

Observations by P-12 &

University supervisors.

Self and Peer Evaluations Profile

worksheet on demographics of

students by socio-economic

status. Lessons in P-12

setting/supervising teacher and

mentor feedback.

4 IV, V, VI Initial Advanced

EDUC 237 EDAD 641

ELEM 237 EDUC 537

ELMS 237 EDUC 538

SPED 237 EDUC 539

ELEM 430 READ 630

ELMS 430 READ 631

EDUC 432 READ 632


Utilizes the instruction

and behavior

management strategies

that meet the needs of

all students.

Utilizes assessment data to accommodate

and provide for all

students

Uses curriculum and

pedagogical guides.

Observations by P-12 &

University supervisors.

Teacher/Student Interaction

Analysis.

Assessment analysis, gap areas,

“next instructional steps”.

Summative assessment on need

for diversity in school/district

administrators.

Embedded course performance

assessments.

(Paper-consider research or

reflective response) on how to

manage diversity.

Formative/Summative evaluation

on dialect diversity in literacy.

Page 18



5 Initial

EDUC 237

ELEM 237

ELMS 237

SPED 237

ELEM 430

EDUC 430

EDUC 432


Creates and uses a

variety of assessments

that provide all students

with opportunity to

demonstrate learning

Portfolio Entries

Modified Open

Response

Questions

Standard Based Unit

Analysis of student

work (TPA)

7 IV, V, VI Initial Advanced

EDUC 237 SPED 530

ELEM 237 EDAD 531

ELMS 237 EDAD 636

SPED 237 EDUC 632

ELEM 430

ELMS 430

EDUC 432


Reflects on effectively

meeting the needs of all

learners

Modified Assessment

TPA

Written reflections

Oral reflections during

conferences

Self and peer

assessments Position

paper on students with

diverse disabilities and

exceptionalities

Evaluative case studies

on racial diversity,

exceptionality and

tolerance

Reflection on diverse

learning styles

UC

Stds.

11, 12

Initial

EDUC 237

ELEM 237

ELMS 237

SPED 237

ELEM 430

ELMS 430

EDUC 432


Demonstrates the ethic

of caring for all

students

Uses critical thinking

skills to design and

implement appropriate

instructional strategies

and assessments that

meets the needs of all

students

Demonstrates a strong

work ethic by

persevering in meeting

diverse learner needs

Demonstrates a

commitment to

excellence and

professional ethics

having high

expectations for self and

all students

Course evaluation forms

Formative and Summative P-12

and University supervisors’

forms

Self evaluations

Teaching and Learning Context

(TPA)

Diverse experience

documentation/reflections

Technology

Technology allows for a current, collaborative performance-based approach to evaluation. Educators at

UC believe that technology integration enhances learning and promotes a dynamic, constructivist

approach to augment scholarship (Vannatta & Beyerback, 2000). Technology has changed the world and

is a powerful avenue to academic success. The Unit seeks to instruct both initial and advanced candidates

to develop instructional methods that utilize technology to enable P-12 students to solve problems and

think critically about information (Katz & Macklin, 2007). With a variety of technologies, candidates

plan and implement instruction, communicate with professors, conduct academic research and

complete assignments. Candidates are taught how to use software applications and hardware, how to

Page 19



maintain an electronic portfolio, and how to use technology to improve learning. In order to develop and

implement technology in their own lesson plans, candidates must understand the connection between

technology and learning and the strategies useful in developing meaningful lesson plans (Mims,

Polly, Shepherd & Inan, 2006). To meet the needs of the P-12 student, technology should be

infused across the curriculum, not just taught in stand-alone courses (Littrell, M. Zagumny, & L.

Zagumny, 2005). According to the Kentucky Teacher Standards, “The teacher uses technology to

support instruction; access and manipulate data; enhance professional growth and

productivity; communicate and collaborate with colleagues, parents, and the community; and

conduct research.” Technology builds knowledge, and technology literacy is a communicative tool

necessary for all education candidates, not only during the educational process but also

throughout their professional lives.

University of the Cumberlands has embedded technology standards into its professional

education curriculum. All education candidates are required to take a computer software course that

includes hands-on experience with word processing and presentation software packages. Faculty

members and field experience supervisors model and demonstrate a variety of technology

applications. In addition, throughout their coursework, candidates conduct research using the Library’s

online databases and other web-based resources. Technology usage in professional education courses is

outlined in Tables 4.5.3 and 4.5.4.

Table 4.5.3. Initial Program – Major Technology Usage and Proficiencies/Tasks/Outcomes

Course Proficiencies/Tasks/Outcomes

EDUC 235 Smartboard, group projects

SPED 233 CD, DVD, LiveText (eportfolio)

EDUC/ELEM/ ELMS/

SPED 237

ELEM/ELMS 331

Lesson plans, SmartBoard, LiveText (eportfolio)

EDUC 331 Internet searches, DVD Clips, CD’s

ELEM/ELMS 338 Technology generated reading journal

ELEM 339 Web Quests, Science equipment available in P-12 settings

SPED 331 PowerPoint, internet research, audio/videos

SPED 432

SPED 433

Lesson Plans, Internet searches, LiveText, Assessment analysis with Excel

EDUC 432, ELEM/

ELMS 430, EDUC 492,

EDUC 493, ELEM/

ELMS 491, SPED 435,

SPED 436, SPED 499

Lesson Plans, LiveText, SmartBoard, KET/Encylomedia, Assessment analysis with Excel

ART 331 Research on Internet, Lesson Plans

BMIS 130 Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access

HLTH 438 Internet research, resource files, PowerPoint, Lesson Plans

MATH 332 Geometry Sketch Pad, Spreadsheets, Calculators, Website assessments

PSYC 232 PowerPoint, DVD clips, CD’s

PSYC 238 PowerPoint, DVD Clips, Library Database

Page 20



Table 4.5.4. Advanced Program – Major Technology Usage and Proficiencies/Tasks/Outcomes

Course Proficiencies/Tasks/Outcomes

EDUC 533 Word-Processing Evaluation

Internet Evaluation

Instructional Software Evaluation

Hardware Evaluation

STI/Infinite Campus-Administrative Software Evaluation

Technology Plan Evaluation

EDUC 630

EDUC 635

PowerPoint, online search engines, Electronic databases, data analysis software, computer

random sample

programs, Presentation Software EDUC 633 Technology Plan Evaluation

Data Management Program and Software Appraisal

Technology Networking Technology Conduct and Ethics School/District Website Design

EDUC 698

EDUC 699

Technology Usage in Classroom Chart during student teaching/practicum

EDAD 633 Database and Data Set Input/Analysis with EXCEL and SPSS and Word.

Boomerang (survey program) proficiency

EDAD 637 Law Crawler

EXCEL

Audio/Videos from MPR & PBS

All Courses

(Online)

Various search engines

Internet course delivery

Chat

Discussion Threads

PowerPoint

Electronic Scorer

Word documents

Online Delivery

University of the Cumberlands was one of the first institutions of higher education to develop

graduate educational programs that are entirely online. Ample research was completed prior to

making this decision. Clark (1994) stated that the delivery method of courses has little effect on student

outcomes. It is the method of instruction and the content of the course that lead to understanding.

Another study conducted by Timothy Braun at Loyola Marymount found that most students believed

that the quality of online instruction was equal to that of traditional instruction. Nearly seventy-five

percent (75%) of the group that participated in the study reported that online courses were much more or

slightly more demanding (Braun 2008).

After a review of six studies on the effectiveness of computer conferencing, Kearsley, Lynch, & Wizer

(1995) determined that “the overwhelming conclusion from these studies is that computer

conferencing works very well for graduate level education (p.37) Moreover, in a survey of 250 teachers,

Dorbin (1999) found that “85% of faculty felt that student learning outcomes in online education were

comparable or better to those found in face-to-face classrooms” (p. 6). Weiner (2003) found that online

learning significantly improved writing and computer skills in courses.

The amount of online resources available through the web including journals and relevant web sites also

provide a rich source of resources for the online learner (Thurmond, 2003). Online delivery also helps to

Page 21



remove instructor bias or favoritism. Indeed, comparing student scores by blind-scoring tests in

graduate online and face-to-face courses, Fallah & Ubell, (2000) found “average score for the online

class was 5 points (5%) higher than for the on-campus class” (p. 12).

All modes of instructional delivery must consider students’ learning styles and preferences. Some

students prefer face-to-face courses, and some prefer online course. Diaz & Cartnal (1999) suggest that

students who excel in face-to-face courses are dependent thinkers, are competitive, favor collaboration,

are concrete thinkers and are motivated by extrinsic rewards. Conversely, online students are not

driven by competition as they tend to favor collaboration. They are abstract thinkers and are

primarily intrinsically driven. Sarasin (1998) goes further by suggesting that teachers must be cognizant

of these different learning styles, and notes that “instructors should be willing to change their teaching

strategies and techniques based on an appreciation of the variety of student learning styles …. [T]he

proper question is not whether distance education is comparable to a hypothetical ‘traditional’ or face-to-

face instruction, but if there is enough interaction between the learner and the instructor for the learner

to find meaning and develop new knowledge” (p. 2).

University of the Cumberlands continues to review the most current literature in online education as a

guiding tool. The January, 2013, Babson Survey Research Group’s findings reflect one of the most

comprehensive and current studies regarding online education. As a result of the Sloan Consortium and

Pearson partnership, the study provides current data. Beginning in 2006, the College Board agreed to

include online enrollment questions as part of their Annual Survey of Colleges. First, for every year of

this report, online education has increased at rates far in excess of those of overall higher education. The

number of students taking at least one online course increased by over five hundred and seventy thousand

students to a new total of over six million. The proportion of all students taking a least one online course

is at an all-time high of thirty percent (Allen & Seaman, 2013).

In addition, the reports in this research series have consistently found most chief academic officers rate

the learning outcomes for online education “as good as or better than” those for face-to-face instruction.

In the first report of this series in 2003, 57.2 percent of academic leaders rated the learning outcomes in

online education as the same or superior to those in face-to-face. That number is now 77 percent.

Academic leaders at institutions with online offerings have a much more favorable opinion of the relative

learning outcomes for online courses than do at institutions with no online offerings (Allen & Seaman,

2013, p. 5)

Furthermore, previous reports in this series noted the proportion of institutions that see online education

as a critical component of their long-term strategy has shown small by steady increases overtime. When

the report series began in 2002, less than one-half of all higher education institutions reported online

education as critical to their long-term strategy. That number is now close to seventy percent. Likewise,

the proportion of institutions reporting online education is not critical to their long-term strategy has

dropped to a new low of 11.2 percent. (Allen & Seaman, 2013, P.4)

Further, the 2012 Babson Survey Research Group results noted in earlier findings of this report series,

contrary to some expectations, teaching online courses requires more time and effort from faculty than

teaching a course face-to-face. Currently, the percent of academic leaders that believe it takes more

faculty time and effort to teach online has increased from 41.4 percent in 2006 to 44.6 in 2012. (Allen &

Seaman, 2013, p. 6)

Current research regarding online learning is vital to the University of the Cumberlands as it carefully and

purposefully plans and continually addresses the rigor and changes in online education. Faculty members

are trained in online best practices such as: Differentiating instruction to meet the learning styles of all

students, creating a supportive online course community, sharing a set of very clear expectations for

students, using both synchronous and asynchronous activities, preparing posts that invite questions,

Page 22



discussions, reflections and responses, and combining core concept learning with customized and

personalized training.

Further, instructional and technical strategies are utilized by faculty members to maximize learning such

as: Synchronous chat/class each week providing real time problem-solving opportunities, authentic

learning that fosters creativity using Bloom’s Taxonomy, concept learning as postulated by Vygotsky-

teach in a linear fashion but apply concepts within case studies combining concepts and principles within

a context, discussion forums that include collaborative and more reflective activities; use of early

feedback surveys to correct and modify instruction; Socratic-type probing and follow-up questions;

taped/archived classes; video and audio to not only teach but also to demonstrate projects; video

conferences; online quizzes/exams; assignments that are posted and electronically scored; e-mail,

telephone, and accurate, real time technology assistance to both students and faculty members.

University of the Cumberlands online delivery model focuses on meeting the unique needs of each

student and how that student can best be served in an online learning community. Priority is placed on

the interaction and engagement of the student with core concepts and knowledge of the course. This

online delivery model accommodates a myriad of learning styles and student needs as UC strives to

provide the state- of- the-art online education.

4.6 Description of the Unit’s Assessment System

a. Alignment of the Conceptual Framework to the Continuous Assessment Model

The Unit has developed a continuous assessment model that represents the checkpoints or Pillars at

which candidate performances are assessed. This model also serves as a graphic representation of how

the Conceptual Framework is interwoven throughout the candidate preparation process. At each Pillar,

candidates are assessed and evaluated on coursework, dispositions, and performance criteria. These

criteria may be in the form of formative evaluations, standardized tests, portfolios and summative

evaluation, which incorporates candidate evaluation on Kentucky Teacher, ISLLC, KSC, and UC

Standards. Data is aggregated for feedback to faculty and is used to help facilitate program improvement

and/or change. All programs have three Pillars at which candidates are assessed.

As candidates progress through their programs, the Unit’s Continuous Assessment Pillars provide

checkpoints for the assessment of candidates’ acquisition of knowledge and toward becoming Reflective

Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking. The four strands are evident

at all Pillars and build upon one another. Although they are not exclusively addressed at each Pillar,

they are emphasized at these checkpoints. For example, early field experiences provide opportunities

for candidates to apply their Communicative Knowledge based on the Constructivist theory to encourage

communication between the teacher and the students and also between the students themselves. In

student teaching, candidates apply their Communicative Knowledge through discussions and by search

out students’ understanding of and prior experiences with a concept before teaching it. Similarly,

principal candidates are given the opportunity to discuss with practicing school administrators a variety

of issues they are certain to face.

Initial Programs. Table 4.6a.1 represents an example of how these knowledge strands relate to

teacher preparation at University of the Cumberlands. At Pillar I, candidates enter the university and

develop Conceptual, Strategic, Evaluative and Communicative knowledge through introductory course

work and field experiences.

Once candidates are admitted to Pillar II, they continue to explore and develop strategies of teaching that

will positively affect student learning. They also communicate this knowledge to P-12 students and

Page 23



evaluate its effectiveness through field experiences. In Pillar III, candidates are placed in student

teaching field experiences that allow them to consistently put into practice all forms of knowledge that

will impact P-12 student learning.

Table 4.6a.1. Knowledge Strands Related to Pillars Pillar I Pillar II Pillar III

Conceptual Candidates are introduced to

basic

educational concepts and

philosophies (i.e.:

constructivism, critical

thinking). Candidates develop

concrete, abstract, verbal,

non-verbal and process

conceptual knowledge

through coursework and field

experiences.

All Standards Assessed –

Pillar 1 criteria 2.0 on 3.0

scale, Pillar II criteria 2.5

on 3.0 scale, Pillar III 2.75

on 3.0 scale

Candidates reflect on all

conceptual knowledge types

and base decisions on that

knowledge’s impact on

student learning


Pillar 1 criteria 2.0 on

3.0 scale, Pillar II criteria 2.5

on 3.0 scale, Pillar III criteria

2.75 on

3.0 scale


conceptual

knowledge, the

constructivists’ theory, and

critical thinking. They put

knowledge into practice as

classroom teachers.


Pillar 1 criteria

2.0 on 3.0 scale,

Pillar II criteria

2.5 on 3.0 scale,

Pillar III criteria

2.75 on 3.0 scale

Strategic Candidates use concepts to develop strategies to

use in field and

clinical experiences. Candidates develop,

practice and modify strategies to teach

concepts and skills. They reflect on the

strategies and their impact on student

learning.


Pillar 1 criteria 2.0 on 3.0 scale, Pillar II

criteria 2.5 on 3.0 scale, Pillar III 2.75 criteria

on 3.0 scale

Candidates reflect on all strategies and their

impact on student learning. They apply best

practices and effective strategies in the

classroom.

All Standards Assessed -

Pillar 1 criteria 2.0 on 3.0 scale,

Pillar II criteria 2.5 on 3.0 scale,

Pillar III criteria 2.75 on 3.0

scale

Evaluative Candidates begin to examine

formative and summative evaluation,

performance evaluation, and acquire the skills

and knowledge to assess the impact on student

learning.


Pillar 1 criteria 2.0 on 3.0 scale,

Candidates use formative and summative

evaluation, performance

evaluation and self-evaluation knowledge and

strategies to assess student learning of concepts

and skills.


Pillar 1 criteria 2.0 on 3.0 scale, Pillar II

criteria 2.5 on 3.0 scale, Pillar III criteria 2.75

on 3.0 scale

Advanced Programs. In a similar fashion, advanced program candidates progress through their

programs building upon the four knowledge strands. Beginning after their entrance to the University at

Pillar IV, candidates develop Conceptual, Strategic, Communicative and Evaluative

Knowledge that they will use to positively affect student learning. These four strands of knowledge are

reinforced and continually assessed in all coursework. Field experiences are a part of the curriculum for

several courses in each degree program so candidates can implement and practice their knowledge

Page 24



learning in a P-12 setting. Table 4.6a.2 epresents an example of how these strands are related to

advanced educator preparation at University of the Cumberlands. At Pillar VI, advanced candidates

graduate from University of the Cumberlands and use all four of the Conceptual Framework strands to

continue to continue to develop as successful educators.

Table 4.6a.2. Initial Graduate and Advanced Programs Integration of the Four Knowledge Strands

Strand Pillar IV - Admission Pillar V - Continuous

Assessment

Pillar VI - Exit

Conceptual Entrance requirements

(GPA, Entrance

examinations, writing

sample) measure:

KTS 1

Letters of

Recommendation measure:

University of the

Cumberlands 11

Candidates are introduced to

and revisit basic

educational concepts and

philosophies (i.e.:

constructivism, critical

thinking) Candidates reflect

on all conceptual knowledge

strands and base decisions

on that knowledge’s impact

on student learning

KTS 1, 2, 6

KCS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

10, 11


conceptual knowledge,

constructivists’ theory, and

critical thinking. They put

knowledge into practice as

classroom teachers.

KTS 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10

KCS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

10, 11, 12

Strategic Writing Sample Candidates develop, practice

and modify

strategies to teach

concepts. They reflect on

the strategies and their

impact on student

learning.

Candidates use concepts to

develop strategies to use in

field experience

KTS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

KCS 4, 5, 6, 8, 10


strategies

and their impact on student

learning and put into practice

as classroom teachers.

KTS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10

KCS 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12

Evaluative Candidates use formative and summative evaluation, performance

evaluation and

self-evaluation knowledge to assess student learning.

Candidates begin to examine formative and summative

evaluation, performance evaluation knowledge to assess

their impact on student learning.

KTS 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10

KCS 4, 7, 8, 11, 12

Communi-

cative

Writing Sample Candidates use oral, visual, and electronic communication to

relay knowledge to

students. They also communicate with parents, colleagues, and

others

Candidates use communicative knowledge with P-12 partners

and students through observation and/or participation in field

experiences.

KTS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10

KCS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Page 25



b. Transition Points/Key Assessments

To evaluate program outcomes, the Unit uses multiple measures to assess its effectiveness. These

assessments are compiled and reviewed at various intervals in both the initial and advanced programs. These

points of reference are identified as Pillars. Each Pillar is a checkpoint that assesses candidates’ preparation

for continuation through the educator preparation program. Tables 5-8 show requirements and key

assessments for progression through each Pillar for both initial and advanced programs. The Conceptual

Framework knowledge strands serve as the foundation for the Pillars, outcomes, and assessments.

Initial Teacher Education Programs

At the Initial Undergraduate Pillar I and Initial Graduate Pillar IV, pre-candidates must meet requirements

for admission to teacher education while at the Initial Undergraduate Pillar II and Initial Graduate Pillar V

candidates must meet requirements to be admitted into student teaching. Likewise, at the Initial

Undergraduate Pillar III and Initial Graduate Pillar VI candidate records are reviewed to verify that

candidates applying for graduation have met all program requirements. Therefore, the criteria listed in

Tables 4.6b.1 and 4.6b.2 within Appendix A are the requirements needed to pass through each pillar to the

next point of review.

Advanced Teacher Education Programs and Certifications

At Pillar IV, candidates enter the University’s advanced programs if they are in compliance with the

graduate admission standards. Candidates are continuously assessed through GPA, field experiences,

PRAXIS II scores, and other standards-based requirements outlined in specific coursework and at each

Pillar. Where applicable, Kentucky Teacher, KCS and ISLLC Standards are assessed through course

embedded assignments and targeted course grades. Exit assessments for advanced candidates include

comprehensive written examinations, comprehensive exam, a Thesis, and/or a portfolio (2007-2009). More

information on how advanced candidates are continuously assessed is provided in the Data Collection,

Analysis and Evaluation section.

At Pillar IV, records are checked to verify that all candidates applying for admission have met all of the

program requirements, including GPA, letters of recommendation, and PRAXIS II, Miller’s, and GRE

scores, as applicable. Therefore, the criteria listed in Tables 4.6b.3 and 4.6b.4 within Appendix A for each

Pillar, are the requirements needed to enter and successfully complete the advanced program (see planned

programs for exact requirements by program).

c. Process for Assuring the Unit’s Assessments are Fair, Accurate, Consistent, and Free from Bias

The use of multiple measures at each Pillar helps ensure candidates are assessed fairly, accurately, and

consistently. A continuous tracking of key assessments at Pillars I, II and III in initial programs and Pillars

IV, V, and VI in advanced programs indicate the validity of quality performance assessment measures. The

KTIP IPR, which has been evaluated for reliability, is the model for many of the unit’s major assessment

templates or rubrics. Portfolio assessments for initial admission to and exit from undergraduate programs are

conducted by two faculty reviewers. Each faculty member independently reads and scores the portfolio

entries using established rubrics which are based on the Kentucky and University standards. Following the

candidate’s portfolio oral defense, the team of reviewers, using a professional judgment model, reaches

consensus in assigning the scores. Initial Graduate Exit Capstone Projects are assessed by both the

EDOL698/699 Course Instructor and a P-12 External Evaluator in the same manner as Initial Undergraduate

candidates. Prior to the assessment process, rubrics and written guidelines are provided to candidates to

enhance fairness and consistency.

Several other means of ensuring fairness, accuracy, and consistency for assessing the unit’s candidates are:

Page 26



The Teacher Education Committee (TEAC). This committee serves initial program candidates and consists

of P-12 representatives, University administrators, support staff, and departmental faculty and/or chairs from

all other University of the Cumberlands’ academic areas that are directly involved with teacher certification.

The TEAC reviews and votes on candidates’ application to Teacher Education at Pillar II. In addition, the

TEAC reviews and votes on all additions, deletions, revisions, and changes in initial teacher education

programs.

The Graduate Education Committee (GEC.) This committee serves in a similar capacity for advanced

programs and consists of graduate faculty members, P-12 representatives, University administrators, support

staff, a liaison from the undergraduate faculty, and department chairs of academic areas offering

certification.

The unit chair presides over both of these two governing bodies. Appeals from candidates who have not met

all requirements in their respective programs may be brought before and entertained by either the TEAC or

the GEC.

Statistical Measurement. During a faculty workshop, major assessments were evaluated using a “Fairness

Table for Reliability Instrument” to measure reliability (whether the assessment is aligned to the standards)

and validity (whether the assessment captures the most important concepts addressed for the task and

whether is it a good predictor of levels of performance) of assessment instruments.

Individual Plans. In an effort to model “differentiation” and fairly meet the diverse needs of struggling

candidates, concerns are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Should a candidate experience academic

difficulties, remedial options are suggested such as scheduling tutorial sessions at the Academic Resource

Center, enrolling in an additional course to remove the academic deficiency, attending PRAXIS study

seminars, or meeting with a faculty member for ACT assistance. Should a problem persist, the candidate

works with the concerned faculty member or advisor to complete an Individual Action Plan. Action Plan

information and date are input into EDUCAN and are subsequently followed with regular reports to advisors

and to the Department Chair in order to determine candidate progress through the plan. When candidates

complete the plan, this is noted in EDUCAN.

Public School Partners. Every semester, public school faculty attend the undergraduate Unit’s significant

program review to evaluate the student teachers’ standards-based units. Collectively, the group reviews the

benchmarks for each Kentucky Teacher and University Standard and, for the purpose of ensuring fairness

and consistency in the assessment process, practices scoring sample unit artifacts. Following the practice

session teachers then, individually or in pairs, score the standards-based units. Independently, university

coordinators then blind score the units. Scores from both public school teachers and university coordinators

are compared to ensure inter-rater reliability. Calculations are made using The Simplified Inter-rater

Reliability Co-efficient Formula. This formula calculates fairness by dividing the number of agree by the

number of agree + disagree and multiplying by 100. A modified KTIP IPR, using the 3 point scale, is used

as the scoring instrument. Prior to beginning the actual External Evaluation process, university coordinators

use this forum to discuss critical program issues and ask that P-12 faculty offer areas for program

improvement. Examples of program suggestions include but are not limited to providing additional

experiences working with exceptional students, practicing penmanship, stressing the importance of

collaboration, and emphasizing behavior management issues. The university coordinators use public school

teacher’s informal feedback as well as External Evaluation data to make student teaching and other program

changes.

Professional Judgement Model. The advanced programs ensure reliability through the independent scoring

of Exit Portfolios (2007-09), Capstone Projects, Thesis, or comprehensive exams. Consensus through a

professional judgment model determines if candidates pass, pass pending revisions, or fail to meet the

established standards. A revision and resubmission opportunity is offered to all candidates to further ensure

fairness. Rubrics or the location of rubrics are published in the Graduate Education Handbook.

Page 27



Inter-rater Reliability. Comprehensive examinations for advanced candidates are independently scored by

two graduate faculty members. To ensure fairness, accuracy and reliability in the scoring process, faculty

meet to conduct an inter-rater reliability study using the Simplified Inter-rater Reliability Co-efficient

formula. This formula calculates fairness by dividing the number of agree by the number of agree + disagree

and multiplying by 100.

d. System for Handling Candidates Who Have Not Met Unit Expectations

Individual Plans: In an effort to model “differentiation” and fairly meet the diverse needs of struggling candidates, concerns are dealt with on an individual student basis. Should a candidate experience academic difficulties, remedial options are suggested and may include scheduling tutorial sessions at the Academic Resource Center, enrolling in an additional course to remove the academic deficiency, attending PRAXIS study seminars, or meeting with a faculty member for ACT assistance. Should a problem persist, the candidate works with the concerned faculty member or advisor to complete an Individual Action Plan. Action Plan information and data are input into the Educational Assessment Network (EDUCAN) database designed to meet the continuous assessment needs of the unit and are subsequently followed with regular reports to advisors and to the Department Chair in order to determine candidate progress through the plan. When candidates complete the plan, this is noted in EDUCAN.

e. Plan for Evaluating Unit Operations

The Unit and its members regularly and systematically use data to evaluate the efficacy of its courses,

programs, and clinical experiences. Data is triangulated using aggregate scores for key assessments,

following a timetable for collecting, processing, reporting, and analyzing results as shown below on

Table 4.6e.1.

Table 4.6e.1. Assessment Calendar with Reporting Responsibilities for Key Assessment Data

Sets – All data sets are to be submitted to Assessment Coordinator as indicated. Data Sets Submission Date Report Generated

Initial Certification Undergraduate Programs

Spring Semester

√

Fall

Semester √

> E-portfolio scores from all reviewers for

Pillars I, II, III (all KY Standards and UC

Dispositions)

____ April Last

Week

____Nov.

Last Week

E-Portfolio Standards

> Field Experience Lesson Evaluations from

P-12 supervisors (Effective Teaching and

Capstone Courses)

____ April Last

Week

____Nov.

Last Week

P-12 Supervisors Field

Experience Evaluations

> External Evaluation Rubrics from P-12

and University faculty

____ April Last

Week

____Nov.

Last Week

External Evaluation

Standards-Based Unit

Assessment

> Student Teacher’s Supervising Teacher’s

Summative

____ May First

Week

____Dec.

First Week

P-12 Supervising

Teacher Summative

Assessment (Clinical)

> University Supervisors’ KTIP IPRs ____ May First

Week

____Dec.

First Week

University Supervisor’s

KTIP IPR Scores

(Clinical)

> GPAs for all candidates (Overall,

Professional Education,

Major/Emphasis/Specialty)

____ May First

Week

____Dec.

First Week

Candidate GPAs

> PRAXIS Scores for calendar year ____ May First

Week

PRAXIS Scores-

Summary

> Graduating Senior Survey Results for

calendar year

____ May First

Week

University Graduating

Senior Survey

Page 28



>EPSB New Teacher Survey for calendar

year

____ May First

Week

EPSB New Teacher

Survey

Initial Certification Graduate and Option 6 Certification Programs

Data Sets Submission Date

√

Submission

Date √

Report Generated

Demographic data on Supervising Teachers,

External Evaluators, External Observers,

Course Instructors, and District-Based

Mentors

February Last

Week

September Last

Week

Personnel Evaluation

Yearly Report

> Field Experience Diversity Hours ____ April Last

Week

____Nov. Last

Week

Yearly Exit Report

> KTIP-IPRs from P-12 and University

faculty

____ April Last

Week

____Nov. Last

Week

Yearly Exit Report

Formative and Summative Evaluation by P-

12 Faculty

____ April Last

Week

____Nov. Last

Week

Yearly Exit Report

Formative and Summative Evaluation of

Mentee’s by P-12 Faculty

____ April Last

Week

____April Last

Week

Yearly Exit Report

Supervising Teacher Evaluation by the

Student Teacher

____ April Last

Week

____Nov. Last

Week

Yearly Exit Report

Supervising Teacher Checklist ____ April Last

Week

____Nov. Last

Week

Yearly Exit Report

> University Supervisors’/Mentors’ KTIP

IPRs with Dispositions

____Completed at

Each Visit

____Completed

at Each Visit

Yearly Exit Report

> Capstone Results (Standards-based) ____ May First

Week

____Dec. First

Week

Yearly Exit Report

> PRAXIS Scores for calendar year ____ May First

Week

Yearly Exit Report

>Graduate Survey ____ May First

Week

Follow up Studies

Yearly Report

Mentee’s Evaluation of District Mentor ____May First

Week

P-12 Mentee’s

Evaluation

Of District Mentor Data

Mentor Evaluation and Self Reflection ____May First

Week

P-12 Mentor Self

Evaluation Data

Graduate Survey Completed by

District/School Mentor and Building

Principal (1 Survey Each)

____May First

Week

Follow up Studies

Yearly Report

>EPSB New Teacher Survey for calendar

year

____ May First

Week

Follow up Studies

Yearly Report

Advanced Program

Data Sets Submission Date Report

Generated

Spring √ Summer √ Fall √

>GRE/Millers Analogy Scores ___ 2

Weeks after

term begins

___2 Weeks after

term begins

___2

Weeks after

term begins

GRE/Millers

Summary

> Entrance Level Writing Assignment ___ 2

Weeks after

term begins

___2 Weeks after

term begins

___2

Weeks after

term begins

Entrance

Writing

Summary

>Letters of Recommendation Disposition

Ratings

___ 2

Weeks after

term begins

___2 Weeks after

term begins

___2

Weeks after

term begins

Disposition

> GPAs for all candidates ___ 2

Weeks after

term ends

___ 2 Weeks

after term ends

___ 2

Weeks after

term ends

Candidate

GPAs

Page 29



> Grades for Targeted Courses ___ 2

Weeks after

term ends

___ 2 Weeks

after term ends

___ 2

Weeks after

term ends

Targeted

Course

Grades

> Demographic data on University

Supervising Instructors, Course Instructors,

Site Supervisors/District-Based Mentors,

External Evaluators, and External Observers

___ 2

Weeks after

term begins

___2 Weeks after

term begins

___2

Weeks after

term begins

Personnel

Evaluation

Yearly

Report

> Field Experience Hours for Targeted

Courses

___ 2

Weeks after

term begins

___2 Weeks after

term begins

___2

Weeks after

term begins

Field

Experience

Hours

Summary

> E-portfolio scores for School Counselor

Program (all School Counselor Standards)

___ 2

Weeks after

term begins

___2 Weeks after

term begins

___2

Weeks after

term begins

E-Portfolio

Standards

Summary

> Counselor Practicum/Internship Summative

Evaluation by Site Supervisor and University

Supervisor

___ 2

Weeks after

term begins

___2

Weeks after

term begins

Counselor

Supervisors

Summative

Evaluation

> Practicum/Internship

> Guidance and Counseling PRAXIS scores

for calendar year

___ May

First Week

PRAXIS

Scores

Summary

>Graduate Survey ____ May

First Week

University

Graduate

Survey

>Graduate Survey ____ May

First Week

Unit

Graduate

Survey

All Programs

Data Sets Submission Date Report Generated

Institutional Alumni Survey

Employer Survey –every 2 years

The Continuous Assessment System provides a collection of data that resulted in the following

programmatic improvement and changes. In addition, at the conclusion of each academic semester, the

University registrar runs a grade report for all candidates completing all graduate courses. The registrar

submits the report to the Unit’s chair who then reviews the report to identify any candidate who has

earned a “C” or lower in a graduate course. The chair sends a letter apprising candidates that they may be

in jeopardy of not meeting their program requirements. A copy of each letter is placed in the candidate’s

file. The Unit has deployed a number of evaluations and assessment measures that enable the efficient

management of its programs with the intent to improve these programs whenever possible. These measures

include faculty/course evaluations, end-of program interviews and surveys, the Kentucky New Teacher

Survey, oral presentations or capstone projects, KTIP/IPR information, Supervising Teacher Evaluations, as

well as aggregations of some key assessments at program pillars or transition points.

f. Candidate Performance on Assessments Conducted for Admission into Program

Data on previous degrees, grade point averages, and test scores are collected upon candidate admission into

the program and are accessible through the university’s student information system, EDUCAN. If

candidates meet the requirements, they receive full admission as approved program candidates. A summary

of admitted candidate performance on the entry grade point average and entrance exam for Fall term 2011 is

provided in Table 4.6f.1.

Page 30



g. Summary of a Sample of Candidate Performance at Exit from Programs

The Education Department’s electronic assessment system (EDUCAN) has been in process since Fall 2009.

Faculty members have access to overall performance data by assessment and candidate performance

assessment data through this system. Based on the data, faculty members are able to identify areas of

improvement for curriculum. Table 4.6g.1 provides an example of data aggregated by program candidates

in the initial programs.

Table 4.6g.1, 2009-2010 PRAXIS II Scores for All Initial Program Completers (F09-Sp10) Program Cut

Score

Under-

graduate

MAT** Option 6

Elementary ( P-5) Elementary Elementary Ed. 10014 Elementary Education 148 167

(19,3)* 164.3 (22, 4)

174.6 (5,1)

Middle School (5-9) Middle School English 10049 Middle School English 157 189 (4) 182 (1)

Social Studies 20089 Middle School Social Studies 149 162 (4) 154 (1) Mathematics 20069 Middle School Mathematics 148 156 (5) 150 (1) 161.5 (2)

Science 10439 Middle School Science 139 156 (3) 147.3 (3)

High School (8-12) Secondary Social Studies 10081 Social Studies Content Knowledge 151 167.5 (6) 160.5

(2) 168.5 (2)

20083 Social Studies Interpret Materials 159 173.1 (6) 159 (2) 166.5 (1)

Biological Science

20235 Biology Content Knowledge 146 161 (1) Chemistry 20245 Chemistry Content Knowledge 147 126 (1) 147 (1)

Physics 10265 Physics Content Knowledge 133 English 10041 English Content Knowledge 160 178.5 (2) 182

(3,1) 178.3 (3)

20042 English Essay 155 157.5 (2) 163.3 (3)

170 (3)

Mathematics 10061 Mathematics Content Knowledge 125 137 (1) 161 (1) 141.6 (3)

20063 Mathematics Proofs, Models, Problems Part I

141 175 (2) 183 (1) 162.2 (4)

Speech/Media Comm. 10220 Speech/Media Communications 161

All Grades P-12

Learning and Behavior Disorders

(P-12)

20353 Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge

157 172.7 (8) 180.8 (5)

171 (15)

10542 Education of Exceptional Students: Mild to Moderate Disabilities

172 183.2 (8) 181.8 (5)

182.9 (14)

Physical Education

(P-12)

10091 Phys. Ed.Content Knowledge 147 152.3 (3)

30092 Phys. Ed. Analysis/Design 151 157 (3)

Integrated Music (P- 12); Instrumental

Music (P-12); and

Vocal Music (P-12)

30111 Music Concepts and Processes 145 160 (4) 155 (1)

10113 Music Content Knowledge 154 158 (4) 164 (1)

Art (P-12) 10133 Art Content Knowledge 158 181 (1) 170 (3)

20131 Art Making 154 161 (1) 170 (3)

French (P-12) 20173 French Content Knowledge 159 Spanish (P-12) 10191 Spanish Content Knowledge 160

Total number

of test takers

79 58 66

Certificates

of Excellence

4% 8.6% 1.5% *In parentheses are noted first, total number of completers, and second, number of Certificates of Excellence, if any) **MAT=MAT traditional Candidates; Option 6=MAT Alternative Certification, Option 6 Candidates



Appendix A: Assessment Pillars & Standards-Based Outcomes Tables

Table 4.6b.1. Assessment Pillars and Standards-Based Outcomes: Initial Undergraduate Program Candidates

Programs Pillar I

Admission to Teacher Education

Pillar II

Admission to Student Teaching

Pillar III

Program Completion

After Program

Completion

Elementary,

P-5

Middle

School, 5-9

Secondary, 8-

12

P-12

Requirements →Graduating

Senior Survey

→Employer

Survey

→EPSB New

Teacher

Survey

→G.P.A- 2.5 overall

→C or better in all degree

coursework

→ PPST

→EDUC 235 – C or better

→SPED 233 – C or better

→EDUC/ELEM/ELMS/SPED 237 –

C or better)

→Application to Teacher Education

completed

→KY Professional Code of Ethics

Signed

→TB skin test, Criminal background

check

→G.P.A.- 2.5 overall


coursework

→Planned Program on file

→Completion of all field

experiences and degree

coursework except student

teaching

→Application to Student Teaching

completed


Signed

→G.P.A.- 2.5 overall


coursework

→Completion of all degree

coursework

→TC-1 Completed

→Graduation Application completed


Signed

Key Assessments

→Three Favorable

Recommendations –assessing

dispositions

→Field experience standards-based

evaluations from P-12 faculty

→Standards-based Entry Eportfolio

Required mean score 2.0 (all KY

and UC standards and all

Knowledge Strands from

Conceptual Framework assessed)

See Holistic Rubrics for Pillar I

→Disposition assessments: course

embedded rubrics, university and

P-12 faculty (UC Standards 11,

12)

→Field experience standards-based

evaluations from P-12 faculty

→PRAXIS II: Principles of Learning

and Teaching completed- verify

registration or scores

→PRAXIS II: Content Knowledge

completed (appropriate to area of

certification)

→Standards-based ePortfolio Entries

Required mean score 2.5 (all KY

and UC standards and all

Knowledge Strands from


→Disposition assessments:

candidate self-assessments,

university and P-12 supervisors

(UC Standards 11, 12)

→Clinical experience

Standards-based evaluations from P-

12 faculty

→Exit Standards-based

ePortfolio/TPAs Entries Required

mean score 2.75 (all KY and UC

standards and all Knowledge Strands

from Conceptual Framework

assessed)

→Standards-based External

Evaluation (KY standards 1-8,10-12

and all Knowledge Strands from




Programs Pillar I

Admission to Teacher Education

Pillar II

Admission to Student Teaching

Pillar III

Program Completion

After Program

Completion

Assessment of Knowledge Strands

Conceptual

Philosophy of Education

Strategic

Use concepts to develop instructional strategies

Communicative

Responses to Eportfolio oral interview

questions

Evaluative

Create initial Professional Growth Plan (self-

evaluation)

Conceptual

Apply concepts related to differentiated

instruction to unit development (in sample

lesson plan)

Strategic

Use concepts to develop instructional and

assessment strategies (e.g. pre/post, open

response)

Communicative

Articulate rationale for instructional decisions

Evaluative

Complete TPA Task C

Standards-based unit evaluation

Conceptual

Revise, refine Philosophy of Education

Strategic

Reflect on how strategies and differentiation

impact diverse learners

Communicative

Explain relationship between artifacts and

KY/UC Standards’ indicators

Evaluative

Engage in self-evaluation based on assessment

data and feedback

Table 4.6b.2. Assessment Pillars and Standards-Based Outcomes: Initial Graduate

Programs Pillar IV

Admission

Pillar V

Mid-Point

Pillar VI

Program Completion

After Program

Completion

Elementary,

P-5

Middle

School, 5-9

Secondary, 8-

12

P-12

Business &

Marketing 5-

12

LBD

Requirements →New Teacher

Survey

→Graduate

Satisfaction

Survey

→Employer

Survey

→UC Graduation

Survey

→G.P.A. of 2.5 or higher

→Bachelor’s degree from accredited

institution of higher education

(KTS 1)

→Three Letters of Recommendation

– including favorable dispositions

→Completed Graduate Application

→Submission of TB skin test,

medical exam, and Criminal

background check


Signed


→Midpoint assessment with advisor

when candidate accumulates 12 –

18 hours credit: Portfolio

discussion

→Completed Planned Program on

file


coursework

→Application to Student

Teaching/Practicum completed

→Completion of field experience

hours


→Fifteen (15) hours of 600 level

courses completed

→A minimum of twenty-one (21)

hours completed at University of

the Cumberlands

→Completion of all degree or

certification coursework

→Six (6) year time limit not

exceeded

→Completed TC-1 or TC-TP


Signed

→Two favorable disposition

assessments

→Completed application for

graduation

Key Assessments

→Assessment of entry level writing →Two favorable disposition →Summative Evaluation



Programs Pillar IV

Admission

Pillar V

Mid-Point

Pillar VI

Program Completion

After Program

Completion

assignment

(all CF Strands)


(KTS 1) – appropriate to area of

certification (with 24 – 30 hours

within area) OR

→GRE (675) (KTS 1)OR Miller

Analogies Test (400) (KTS 1)

assessments

→Standards-based assessments

embedded in course work (course

grades)

EDOL 537, 538 or 539

EDOL 630, EDOL 631



grades for LBD)

SPOL 530, 632, 635

EDOL 630


and Teaching scores (KTS

1,2,3,4,5)– if applicable


(KTS 1)– appropriate to area of

certification - passing scores- if

applicable.

→Summative evaluation (Option 6)

→KTIP-IPR (Option 6)

→KTIP-IPR

→Capstone Project (KTS – all, UC –

all, CF strands – All – mean score

2.75 or above)

Assessment of Knowledge Strands

Conceptual

PRAXIS, GRE or Millers scores

Communicative

Program entrance writing assignment

Conceptual


instruction to units and lessons; Research paper

Strategic


assessments strategies (e.g. pre/post, open

response)

Communicative

Articulate rationale for instructional decisions;

discussion board and chat assignments

Evaluative

Research papers, article critiques, curriculum

comparisons

Conceptual

Philosophy of Education

Strategic

Capstone Rationale and Artifacts

Communicative


Evaluative


Disposition Self-assessment survey



Table 4.6b.3. Assessment Pillars and Standards-Based Outcomes –Advanced Graduate

Programs Pillar IV

Admission

Pillar V

Mid-Point

Pillar VI

Program Completion

After Program

Completion

Additional

Certification(s)

beyond Initial

(through

M.A.T.

curriculum)

Elementary

P-5

Middle

School 5-9

Secondary 8-

12

Special

Education

LBD

Requirements →New Teacher

Survey

→Graduate

Satisfaction

Survey

→Employer Survey


→Bachelor’s degree from

accredited institution of higher

education (KTS 1)

→Completed Graduate

Application


→Completed Planned Program



background check




18 hours credit: Portfolio

discussion


coursework


hours



courses completed



the Cumberlands




exceeded



Signed

→Completed graduation application

Key Assessments

→Assessment of entry Writing

Sample


(KTS 1) – appropriate to area of

certification (with 24 – 30 hours

within area) OR

→GRE (675) (KTS 1)OR Miller

Analogies Test (400) (KTS 1)

→Favorable dispositions on three

letters of recommendation


assessments


embedded in course work-

indicated on individual course

syllabi (KTS all; UC-all, and all

CF strands)

→Completion of the following with

a GPA of 3.0.

EDOL 537, 538 or 539

EDOL 630

EDOL 631


and Teaching scores (KTS

1,2,3,4,5)– if applicable


(KTS 1)– appropriate to area of

certification - passing scores- if

applicable.


assessments

→Comprehensive Exam



M.A.Ed.

Elementary

P-5

Middle

School 5-9

Secondary 8-

12

Requirements →Graduate

Satisfaction

Survey

→Employer Survey


→Valid Teaching License


Application





background check




18 hours credit: Comprehensive

Examination discussion


coursework

→Application for Comprehensive

Exam


hours with favorable assessments



courses completed



the Cumberlands




exceeded



Key Assessments

→Writing Sample Assessment

→Favorable dispositions on letters

of recommendation


assessments


a GPA of 3.0.

EDOL 537, 538 or 539

EDOL 630

EDOL 631

EDOL 634

→Comprehensive Examination

Passed / Thesis completed

Rank I

Elementary

P-5

Middle

School 5-9

Secondary 8-

12

LBD


Satisfaction

Survey

→Employer Survey


→Masters Degree from accredited

IHE

→Valid Teaching License


Application





background check




18 hours credit: Comprehensive



coursework

→Application to Student

Teaching/Practicum completed – if

applicable





courses completed



the Cumberlands



→Ten (10) year time limit not

exceeded



Key Assessments

→Writing Sample Assessment

→Favorable dispositions on letters

of recommendation


assessments


a GPA of 3.0.

→Comprehensive Examination

Passed

→PRAXIS II Content Exams

Scores (passing for certification)



EDOL 537, 538 or 539

EDOL 630

EDOL 631

EDOL 634



grades for LBD)

SPOL 530

SPOL 632

SPOL 635

EDOL 630

Assessment of Knowledge Strands Note: Assessments for MAEd candidates are contingent upon their selected program, the sequence in which the courses

are completed, and are not necessarily common across all programs.

Conceptual

Evidenced by meeting state licensure exam

requirements

Completed a degree program with 2.5 or better

Strategic

Evidenced by completing a degree completion

program

Communicative

Entrance writing assignment

Conceptual


instruction in units and lessons; Research paper

Strategic


assessment strategies

Communicative

Articulate rationale for instructional decisions;

discussion board and chat assignments

Evaluative

Research papers, article critiques, curriculum

comparisons

Conceptual

Comprehensive Examination / Thesis

Strategic

Comprehensive Examination

Communicative

Comprehensive Examinations

Evaluative

Comprehensive Examinations, Disposition

Self-assessment survey

Table 4.6b.4. Assessment Pillars and Standards-Based Outcomes – Advanced – Other School Professionals

Programs Pillar IV

Admission

Pillar V

Mid-Point

Pillar VI

Program Completion

After Program

Completion

Other School

Professionals

M.A.Ed.

Instructional

Leadership:

Principal


Satisfaction

Survey

→Employer

Survey

→G.P.A. of 2.75 higher

→Valid teaching license

→Three years of teaching experience





background check


→Midpoint assessment with

advisor when candidate

accumulates 12 – 18 hours

credit: Comprehensive


→Application for Practicum

completed



courses completed

→A minimum of 21 hours completed

at University of the Cumberlands



→Six (6) year time limit not exceeded





Programs Pillar IV

Admission

Pillar V

Mid-Point

Pillar VI

Program Completion

After Program

Completion

Key Assessments

→Writing Sample and Assessment

→Three Letters of

Recommendation – including

favorable dispositions :

Administrator

Superintendent

Other


assessments



→Assessment of case studies based

upon appropriate standards,

ISLLC, TSSA


embedded in course work, GPA

of 3.0.

ADOL 630 (ISLLC I & IV)

ADOL 632 (ISLLC II & III)

ADOL 633 Applied Research

ADOL 636 (ISLLC V&VI)

→ Completion of the following with a

GPA of 3.0.

ADOL 664 (Practicum)

→Dispositional Survey

→Mentor Evaluations in Practicum

(Standards based)

→Comprehensive Examination Passed

/ Thesis completed

→Completion of Kentucky Specialty

Test of Instructional and

Administration Practice (optional)

→Completion of School Leader

Licensure Assessment (SLLA)

(optional)

Other School

Professionals

M.A.Ed.

School

Counseling


Satisfaction

Survey

→Employer

Survey


→Bachelor’s degree from an

accredited IHE

→Three Letters of

Recommendation – including

favorable dispositions





background check




18 hours credit on 12 Program

Objectives and Curriculum of the

School Counseling Program

→Application for Practicum with

Approved Site


→Completion of all 33 program hours

and University of the Cumberlands

→Six year time limit not exceeded

→TC-1 Completed

Key Assessments

→Writing Sample and Assessment

→GRE 675 or Miller’s Analogies Test

400

→Favorable dispositions on letters of

recommendation

→PRAXIS #421, Professional

School Counseling


assessments

→Field experience completed with

favorable assessments

→Passing Scores on Standards

Based Eportfolio

→COOL 637 Counseling Practicum

with favorable assessments

→COOL 638 Counseling Internship

with favorable assessments



Programs Pillar IV

Admission

Pillar V

Mid-Point

Pillar VI

Program Completion

After Program

Completion

Other School

Professionals

M.A.Ed.

Supervisor of

Instruction


Satisfaction

Survey

→Employer

Survey


→Valid teaching certificate

→Master’s degree from IHE




→Submission of TB skin test, medical

exam, and Criminal background

check


→Application to Administrative

Practicum completed






→Application for Practicum

completed




→TC-1 Completed

→Eighteen (18) hours of 600 level

courses completed


hours completed at University of the

Cumberlands

→Ten (10) year limit not exceeded

Key Assessments

→Assessment of entry level writing

assignment




assessments


hours with favorable

assessments

→Assessment of case studies

based upon appropriate

standards (ISLLC, TSSA)

→Completion of the following

with a 3.0 G.P.A.:

ADOL 630 (ISLLC I&IV)

ADOL 632 (ISLLC II&III)

ADOL 636 (ISLLC V)


→Summative Evaluation in Practicum

Final (standards based)


(Standards based)

→Comprehensive Exam passed

(standards based)

Other School

Professionals

Director of

Special

Education


Satisfaction

Survey

→Employer

Survey







(minimum 1 year in special

education or school psychology)

→KTIP successfully completed or two

years of successful out-of-state

teaching









Practicum completed




→TC-1 Completed

→Eighteen (18) hours of 600 level

courses completed



the Cumberlands

→Ten (10) year limit not exceeded



Programs Pillar IV

Admission

Pillar V

Mid-Point

Pillar VI

Program Completion

After Program

Completion


check

Key Assessments


assignment




with a 3.0 G.P.A.:



ADOL 636 (ISLLC V& VI)


assessments




based upon appropriate standards

(ISLLC, TSSA, and/or CEC)





(Standards based)


(standards based)

Other School

Professionals

MAEd

Reading

and

Writing

Specialist

P12


→Satisfaction

Survey

→Employer

Survey



→Bachelor’s degree from IHE


→Three Letters of Recommendation




check

Not applicable (18 hour program) →G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher


courses completed


hours completed at University of the

Cumberlands



→Six (6) year time limit not exceeded

→TC-1 Completed

Key Assessments


assignment



Not applicable (18 hour program) →Dispositional Survey

→ Comprehensive Exam passed /

Thesis completed

→ Completion of the following with a

3.0 G.P.A.:

REOL 531, REOL 630

REOL 631, REOL 632

→Field Experience Assessments



Programs Pillar IV

Admission

Pillar V

Mid-Point

Pillar VI

Program Completion

After Program

Completion

Other School

Professionals

Ed.S.

Superinten-

dent


Satisfaction

Survey

→Employer

Survey







→Two years in educational

administration

→Level II certification in Supervisor of

Instruction or Principalship



teaching



check




Practicum completed




→TC-1 Completed


Key Assessments


assignment




with a 3.0 G.P.A.:

ADOL 634 (ISLLC IV)

ADOL 637 (ISLLC V)


ADOL 641 (ISLLC I&VI)


assessments




based upon appropriate standards

(ISLLC, TSSA)





(Standards based)


(standards based)

Other School

Professionals

Ed.S.

Supervisor


Satisfaction

Survey

→Employer

Survey








file

→Application to Practicum

completed


→Twenty-one (21) hours of 600 level

courses completed





Programs Pillar IV

Admission

Pillar V

Mid-Point

Pillar VI

Program Completion

After Program

Completion

of

Instruction



teaching



check



accumulates 15-24 hours

the Cumberlands

→Five (5) year limit not exceeded

→Degree application completed

Key Assessments


400


assignment



→Assessment of School

Improvement Plan

→Assessment of Professional

Development Plan


with a 3.0 G.P.A.:



ADOL 634 for (ISLLC IV)

ADOL 637 (ISLLC V )


ADOL 641 (ISLLC I&VI)




Finals (standards based)


(Standards based)

Assessment of Knowledge Strands: (Note: Assessments for other advanced candidates are contingent upon their selected program, the sequence in which the

courses are completed, and are not necessarily common across all programs)

Conceptual

Evidenced by meeting state licensure exam

requirements


Strategic

As evidenced by completing a degree

completion program

Communicative


Conceptual

Apply concepts related to best practice

(instructional or administrative)

Strategic


assessment strategies (instructional,

programmatic or administrative)

Communicative

Articulate rationale for instructional,

programmatic decisions; discussion board and

chat assignments

Evaluative

Article critiques, curriculum, program

comparisons and evaluation

Conceptual

Apply conceptual knowledge to case study

analysis

Comprehensive Exam / Portfolio

Strategic

Comprehensive Exam / Portfolio

Communicative

Comprehensive Exam / Portfolio Evaluative

Reflect on experiences with diverse

populations

Comprehensive Exam/ Portfolio

Other School

Professionals


Satisfaction →G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher →G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher →G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher



Programs Pillar IV

Admission

Pillar V

Mid-Point

Pillar VI

Program Completion

After Program

Completion

Ed.S.

School

Counselor

→Master’s degree from IHE with at

least 30 hours

→ Entrance Exam: GRE (675)/Miller

Analogies Test (400)/Guidance Counselor

PRAXIS #421

→ Assessment of Entry Level Writing

Assignment → Kentucky Professional Code of Ethics

→ Three (3) letters of recommendation


hours



accumulates 6-9 hours

→Two favorable dispositions

→All Ed.S. hours completed at


→Six (6) year limit not exceeded

→Degree application completed

→Successful Completion of 60 hours

coursework

→TC-1 completed ______________

Survey

→Employer

Survey

Key Assessments


400/ Guidance Counselor PRAXIS

#421 550 →Assessment of entry level writing

assignment



→Completion of coursework

with a 3.0 G.P.A.


→Completion of coursework with a 3.0

G.P.A.

Assessment of Knowledge Strands: (Note: Assessments for other advanced candidates are contingent upon their selected program, the sequence in which the

courses are completed, and are not necessarily common across all programs)

Conceptual


Strategic


completion program

Communicative


Conceptual

Apply concepts related to best practice in

counseling

Strategic


assessment strategies (instructional,

programmatic or specific counseling needs)

Communicative



chat assignments

Evaluative



Conceptual

Apply conceptual knowledge to case study

analysis

Strategic


completion program

Communicative



chat assignments Evaluative

Reflect on experiences with diverse

populations



*For candidates completing 30 hour program

Page 43



Appendix B: Bibliography

Abrami, P.C., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Wadem, A., Surkes, M.A., Tamim, R., and Zhang, D. (2008).

Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of

Educational Research, 78, 1102-1134.).

Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. New

York: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. 2013, 4-6.

Alexander, P.A., Jetton, T.L., Julikowich, J.M., & Woehler, C. (1994). Contrasting instructional and structural

importance: The seductive effect of teacher question. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 19-45.

Alexander, P.A., & Judy, J.E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in

academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 375-404.

Alexander, P.A., & Murphy, P.K. (1995). The research base for APA’s learner-centered psychological

principles. University of Maryland.

Alexander, P.A., Schallert, D.L., & Hare, V.C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy

talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 315-343.

Allsopp, D.H., Demarie, D., McHatton, P.A., & Doone, E. (2006). Bridging the gap between theory and practice:

Connecting courses with field experiences. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 19-35.

Alverman, D.E., Smith, L.C., & Readence, J.E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of

compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20 (4), 420-436.

Amobi, F.A. (2006). Beyond the call: Preserving reflection in the preparation of “highly qualified” teachers. Teacher

Education Quarterly 33(2), 23-35.

Anderson, R.C., Pichert, J.W., & Shirey, L.L. (1983). Effects of reader’s schema at different points in time. Journal

Educational Psychology 75(2), 271-279.

Anderson, R.C., Reynolds, R.E., Schallert, D.L., & Goetz, E.T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending

discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 367-381.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52

(1), 1-26.

Barnes, C. (2006). Preparing preservice teachers to teach in a culturally responsive way [Electronic version]. Negro

Educational Review, 57(1-2), 85-100.

Barry, N.H. (1994). Promoting reflective practice among undergraduate education majors in an elementary music

methods course. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association,

November. Nashville, TN.

Braun, T. (2008). Making a choice: The perceptions and attitudes of online graduate students. Journal of Technology

and Teacher Education, 16(1), 63-92.

Britzman, D.P. (1991). Practice makes practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Chaiklin, S. (2003). The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotsky’s Analysis of Learning and Instruction In

Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V., Miller, S. (2003). Vygotsky’s Educational Theory and Practice in Cultural

Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chant, R.H., Heafner, T.L., & Bennett, K.R. (2004). Connecting personal theorizing and action research in

preservice teacher development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(3), 25-42.

Chicoine, D. (2004). Ignoring the obvious: A constructivist critique of the traditional teacher education program.

Educational Studies, 36(3), 245-263.

Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-

29. Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. S. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice.

Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15. Darling-Hammond, L. & Baratz-Snowden, J. (2007). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly

qualified teachers our children deserve. Educational Horizons, 85(2), 111-32. Retrieved October 29, 2007, from

OmniFile Full Text Mega database.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers

should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Page 44



Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D.J., Gatlin, S., & Heilig, J.V. (2005). Does teacher education preparation matter?

Evidence about teacher certification, teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis

Archives, 13(42), 1-29.

Diaz, D., Cartnal, R. (1999). Students’ learning styles in two classes: Online distance learning and equivalent on-

campus. College Teaching, 47(4), 130-135.

Dorbin, J. (1999). Who’s teaching online? ITPE News, 2(12), 6-7. Dunkin, M. J., Precians, R. B., & Nettle, E. B. (1994). Effects of formal teacher education upon student teachers'

cognitions regarding teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 395-408.

Dewey, J. (1974). The child and the curriculum. In John Dewey on Education, edited by R.D.Archambault. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Education Professional Standards Board. (2012). Professional code of ethics for Kentucky certified school

personnel. Retrieved September 20, 2012 from http://www.kyepsb.net/legal/ethics.asp.

Elder, L. (2005). Critical thinking as the key to the learning college: A professional development model. New

Directions for Community College, 130, 39-48.

Fallah, M. H., & Ubell, R. (2000). Blind scores in a graduate test: Conventional compared with web-based outcomes.

Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/magazine/v4n2/fallah.asp

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, J. (1991). The unschooled mind. New York: Basic Books.

Garmon, M.A. (2005). Six key factors for changing preservice teachers’ attitudes/beliefs about diversity Educational Studies, 38 (3), 275-286.

Giancarlo, C.A. & Facione, P.A. (2001). A look across four years at the disposition toward critical thinking among

undergraduate students. The Journal of General Education, 50(1), 29-55.

Gibson, J.J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton-Miffin. Glasser, W. (1990). The

quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York: Harper & Row.

Greeno, J., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In Berliner, D. C., & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.)

Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan.

Gronlund, N.E., & Linn, R.L. (1990). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. New York: Macmillan. Goubeaud, K., &Yan, W. (2004). Teacher educators‟ teaching methods, assessments, and grading: A comparison of higher

education faculty‟s instructional practices. The Teacher Educator, 40 (1), 1-16. Graves, D.H. (2001). The energy to teach. Westport, CT: Heinemann.

Halpern, D.F. (2000). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a

critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, March 7, 69-74.

Harris, K., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy

construction. Exceptional Children, 57(5), 392-404.

Helm, C. (2006). Teacher dispositions as predictors of good teaching. The Clearing House, 79(3), 117-118.

Helm, C. (2007). Teacher dispositions affecting self-esteem and student performance. The Clearing House, 80

(3), 109-110.

Heritage. M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-

145.

Hink, S. S., & Brandell, M. E. (1999). Service learning: Facilitating academic learning and character

development. NASSP Bulletin, 83(609), 16-24.

Hogan, T., Rabinowitz, M., & Craven III, J.A. (2003). Representation in teaching: Inferences from research of

expert and novice teachers. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 235-247.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31(9), 28-33.

Katz, I. R., & Macklin, A. S. (2007). Information and communication technology (ICT) literacy: Integration and

assessment in higher education. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics, 5(4), 50-55.

Kauchak, D. P., & Eggen, P. D. (1998). Learning and teaching: Research-based methods. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Kearsley, G., Lynch, W., & Wizer (1995). The effectiveness and impact of computer conferencing in

graduate education. Educational Technology, 35(6), 37-42.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source learning and development. New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, A.Y. and Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning

in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4 (2), 193–212.

http://www.kyepsb.net/legal/ethics.asp

http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/magazine/v4n2/fallah.asp

Page 45



Littrell, A. B., Zagumny, M. J., & Zagumny, L. L. (2005). Contextual and psychological predictors of

instructional technology use in rural classrooms. Educational Research Quarterly,29(2), 37-47. Mac Suibhne, S. (2009). "'Wrestle to be the man philosophy wished to make you': Marcus Aurelius, reflective

practitioner". Reflective Practice, 10 (4), 429–436. Maheady, L., Jabot, M., Rey, J., & Michielli-Pendl, J. (2007). An early field-based experience and its impact on pre-

service candidates’ teaching practice and their pupils’ outcomes. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(1), 24-33.

McGlinn, J.M. (2003). The impact of experimental learning on student teachers. Clearing House,76(3), 143-147.

Meadows, E. (2006). Preparing teachers to be curious, open minded, and actively reflexive: Dewey’s ideas

reconsidered. Action in Teacher Education, 28, 4-14.

Mims, C., Polly, D., Shepherd, C., & Inan, F. (2006). Examining PT3 projects designed to improve preservice

education. TechTrends, 50(3), 16-24.

Moore, R. (2006). Taking action: Assessing the impact of preservice teaching on learning. Action in Teacher

Education, 28(3), 53-60.

Moss, C.M. (1997). Systematic self-reflection: Professional development for the reflective practitioner. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Murphy, P.K. and Alexander, P.A. (2006). Understanding How Students Learn: A Guide for Instructional

Leaders. Thousand-Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional Standards for the Accreditation of

Teacher Preparation Institutions. Washington, DC: Author.

Neill, M. (2006). Preparing teachers to beat the agonies of NCLB. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for

Quick Review, 71(8), 8-12.

Nieto, S. (2003). Challenging current notions of “highly qualitied teachers’ through work in a teachers’ inquiry group.

Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5), 386-398.

Palmer, P.J. (2004). A Hidden Wholeness: The journey toward an undivided life. San-Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Palmer, B.C., Rowell, C.G., & Brooks, M.A. (2004). Reflection and cognitive strategy instruction: Modeling active

learning for pre-service teachers. Reading Horizons, 45(3), 195-216.

Phelps, P. (2006). The assessment of teacher dispositions. The Clearing House, 79 (6), 237-239.

Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher,

24(7), 5-12.

Piaget, J. (1953). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International University Press.

Plake, B.S. (1993). Teacher Assessment Literacy: Teachers’ competencies in the educational assessment of students.

Midwestern Educational Researcher, 6(1), 21-27. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on

teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M.W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does

one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 1-16.

Reeves, D. (Ed.) (2007). Ahead of the Curve: The Power of Assessment to Tranform Teaching and Learning.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College

Record, 104(4), 842-866.

Romano, M.E. (2005). Preservice teachers’ reflections on observed “bumpy moments” in teaching: Implications for

teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 40(4). 257-277. Sarasin, L.C. (1998). Learning style perspectives: Impact in the classroom. Madison, WI: Atwood.

Schmoker, M., (2006). Results now. How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and

learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Spalding, E., & Wilson, A. (2002). Demystifying reflection: A study of pedagogical strategies that encourage

reflective journal writing. Teacher College Record, 104(7), 1393-1421.

Stiggins, R. (2001). Student Involved Classroom Assessment. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-

765.

Talbert-Johnson, C. (2006). Preparing highly qualified teacher candidates for urban schools: The importance of

dispositions. Education and Urban Society, 39(1), 147-160.

Taylor, R. L., & Wasicsko, M. M. (2000, November). The dispositions to teach. Paper presented at the annual

Southern Regional Association of Teacher Educators Conference, Lexington, KY.

Page 46



Thornton, H. (2006). Dispositions in action: Do dispositions make a difference in practice?" Teacher Education

Quarterly, 33(2), 53-68.

Thurmond, V. (2003, March). Examination of interaction variables as predictors of students‟ satisfaction and willingness to

enroll in future we-based courses while controlling for student characteristics. Proceedings of Society for

Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference.

Uline, C., Wilson, J.D., & Cordry, S. (2004). Reflective journals: A valuable tool for teacher preparation.

Education, 124(3), 456-460.

University of the Cumberlands. (2006). Quality enhancement plan. Williamsburg, KY: University of the

Cumberlands.

University of the Cumberlands. (2007). University of the Cumberlands catalogue. Williamsburg, KY: University of

the Cumberlands.

Valentin, S. (2006). Addressing diversity in teacher education programs. Education, 127(2), 196-202.

Van Huizen, P., Van Oers, B., & Wubbles, T. (2005). A Vygotskian perspective on teacher education. Journal

of Curriculum Studies, 37(3), 267-290.

Vannatta, R., & Beyerback, B. (2000). Facilitating a constructivist vision of technology integration among education

faculty and preservice teachers. Journal for Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 132-148.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1997). Educational psychology. (R. Silverman, Trans.). Boca Raton, FL: Saint Lucie Press. (Original

work published in 1926.)

Weiner, M. (2002). Learner–centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San-Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Weiner, C. (2003). Key ingredients to online learning: Adolescent students study in cyberspace – the nature of the study. International Journal on E-Learning. 2(3), 44-50. Westwood, P. (2008). What Teachers Need to Know about Teaching Methods. Victoria, Australia: ACER

Press.

Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student

performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Documents

A Conceptual Framework for Preparing Future … Conceptual Framework for Preparing Future Educators ... Conceptual Framework for University of the ... teachers by requiring a general