TRINITY INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
2065 Half Day Road | Deerfield, IL 60015
School of Education
Conceptual Framework
- January 2006 -
Adopted August 1998 | Reviewed August 2001 | Revised January 2003
Revised April 2004 | Revised December 2004 | Revised October 2005
Introduction
The conceptual framework guides the work of the faculty of the School of Education at
Trinity International University and that of their full and part-time colleagues who are similarly
engaged in the preparation of tomorrow's teachers. This framework represents the shared vision
of the teacher education unit, and as such provides direction for its various programs, course
development, instructional strategies, field and clinical experiences, and measures of candidate
performance. Because it is aligned with the university's mission and core values, the framework
reflects both the specific vision of the School of Education and the broader guiding principles
that inform the direction and growth of the entire institution. It is a living document, responsive
to current research and state and national standards. As Trinity's School of Education faculty
and the number of its programs grow, we consistently revisit the framework to assess its current
accuracy and to evaluate new course and program alignment to the philosophy, goals, and
objectives articulated therein.
The framework's development began in June, 1997 and, with collaborative input from
alumni, extended faculty, and K-12 practitioners, continued through a number of iterations, until
its final adoption by the unit on August 14, 1998. Since that time, the framework has been
reviewed and expanded in order to keep pace with program development and standards-aligned
revision. The expanded document includes 1) the vision and mission of the institution; 2) the
unit's philosophy, purposes, and goals; 3) the knowledge base that provides the philosophical
and theoretical underpinnings of the framework; 4) an alignment of the framework with
professional and standards; and 5) the unit's assessment system.
During 2004-2005 academic year, the unit and its stakeholders revised the mission
statement to more clearly articulate the vision and goals of the teacher education program at
Trinity. This lengthy process required us to grapple with varying viewpoints and to carefully
consider the accuracy of each word and phrase. The current framework represents the thinking
of a specific group of individuals working in a specific context, and as such is to be seen as a
work in progress. As we continue to be sensitive to the needs of our various stakeholders (our
institution, faculty colleagues, school personnel, parents, and students of all ages), our
framework will continue to change in shape and dimension. We offer it here as the beginning of
a conversation, an attempt to put into words the thinking that informs us, the heart that motivates
us, and the spiritual commitment that guides us.
The Shared Vision and Mission of the Institution and the Unit
Teaching as a Mission: Touching Lives One Student at a Time
The School of Education seeks to develop highly qualified Christian teachers who view
teaching as a mission; they nurture their students, reflect critically on their practice, and
facilitate classroom experience to maximize the potential of all learners. At Trinity
International University, mission is synonymous with one's calling, lifework, or vocation.
Such a conception fits well with both Trinity's statement of institutional distinctives and with
the educational community's mandate to prepare candidates for the teaching profession. As
teacher educators, we consider ourselves called to embody the university's five core values (Trinity College Catalog 2005-2006 p. 11.) together with the college's six-part Statement of Mission (Trinity College Catalog 2005-2006 pp. 12-13), and to engage our candidates in reflective and ongoing consideration of how these guiding beliefs can inform their preparation and guide their professional
and personal development.
As members of the Trinity International University community, School of Education
faculty and staff commit themselves to its core values and to the mission statements of the
college and the graduate school:
A. Trinity International University Core Values
Christ-centeredness. As Christians, we are committed to live out our faith in the
context of a community of believers who share a common calling. Our desire is to
model and engender Christ centeredness in all that we do both within the university
and as we work with faculty and students in K-12 schools.
Comprehensive education. As Christian educators, we are called to teach holistically.
We fully support the core value's statement that Trinity "seek(s) to nurture students to
become spiritually mature and biblically informed persons who make well-reasoned
and wise intellectual and moral judgments." (Trinity College Catalog 2005-2006 p. 11.)
Community. Reflecting Christ's care for the individual, we recognize and
appreciate the value of each member of the learning community and seek to
demonstrate this as we listen to each other, respect each other, and learn from each
other.
Church-connectedness. Because we view the church as God's chosen means of
accomplishing His work in the world, we partner with church organizations and
sister Christian colleges and universities to provide opportunities for our candidates
to obtain cross-cultural experiences that prepare them for future ministry. In
addition, we provide church families a Christian alternative to secular education.
Cultural engagement. We welcome God's call to become involved in His world.
This involvement requires us to know God's Word and view it as the standard
against which we measure our actions, decisions, and perceptions. We take
seriously the responsibility to equip our candidates "to respond honestly and
earnestly to those in a pluralistic society" (Trinity College Catalog 2005-2006 p. 11.).
B. Trinity College Mission Statement
A reasoned belief in the Christ-centered focus of truth. This belief acknowledges the
reality of a personal and loving God who reveals Himself in every aspect of nature,
life, and knowledge. As we seek to understand the challenges facing today's educators
and to consider hopeful and creative responses to these challenges, we are encouraged
to engage in open-minded inquiry which is energized by our conviction that Truth is
both illuminated and knowable through our relationship with Jesus Christ.
A liberal arts approach to learning. We value the systematic exposure to the heritage
of human experience provided by our liberal arts core curriculum. We believe that this
helps us and our students to ask significant questions and to make sound judgments.
The comprehensive view gained by such study positions our students to be informed
and creative classroom teachers as well as educational leaders in their respective
school communities.
A sustained interest in every participant. We respect the dignity of each person as a
unique image-bearer of God and take seriously our call to support each member of our
community in the integration of all the facets of her or his personal growth. As we
interact with students, we are aware of the privilege we have of touching individual
lives as well as the responsibility that accompanies such a privilege. Thus, we commit
ourselves to prayerful dependence on God's wisdom and guidance in all of our
relationships.
A purposeful involvement in contemporary society. We seek to translate Christian
compassion into redemptive social action. Believing that today's educators need to be
prepared to subject the many belief systems they will encounter to insightful and
critical analysis, we encourage ourselves and our students to read wisely, think deeply,
and become active participants in confronting and working towards resolution of
societal injustice and individual inequality.
A serious attempt to encourage career potential. Believing that every individual has to
potential to make a difference in the world, we accept the responsibility to provide
students with whatever they need to discover and prepare for their futures. As we
model our own commitment to lifelong learning, we join with our students in
exploring the many different avenues open to those who believe their mission in life is
to serve others through teaching.
A creative balancing of tensions inherent in the educational process. We acknowledge
the complexities inherent in many of today's social and educational institutions and
admit that there are often no easy answers for the most pressing of problems.
However, we are not afraid to face hard issues and do so recognizing the necessary
interdependence of reason and faith, of reflective thinking and responsible acting. We
seek to make a difference and encourage our students to do the same.
C. Trinity Graduate School Mission Statement
The two graduate education programs (M.A. in Teaching; M.Ed. in Instructional
Leadership) reflect not only the core values above, but through specific courses
designed to provide candidates a biblical and cultural foundation, adhere to the goals
stated in the TGS mission statement (Trinity Graduate School Catalog 2005-2006 p. 12):
1). To ensure that students have a solid foundation for their Christian faith and a
biblically rooted, historically informed, and theologically sound framework for their
fields;
2) to give students a Christian understanding of their discipline;
3) to clarify the key elements of a biblically based Christian worldview;
4) to address the tension points in contemporary society between a biblically based Christian
worldview and alternative outlooks;
5) to equip students to analyze critically and engage constructively with contemporary culture; 6) to integrate faith and learning at every step in the programs; and 7) to enable students to develop
special expertise in their fields of study.
The Unit's Philosophy, Purposes, and Goals
As members of the School of Education, we commit ourselves to prepare creative,
committed, confident, caring educators who view teaching as a mission rather than as an
occupation. Our primary focus is to educate candidates who understand, value, and are
committed to the concept of teaching all students with equity and excellence. All
candidates are fully prepared to be successful in the public arena. This is true whether they
choose to take their knowledge and skills into public K-12 schools or into private, faithbased,
and/or international schools. We believe that our programs allow candidates to
acquire a balanced view of the potential and pitfalls of today's public schools and to enter
these settings both to learn and to contribute to their improvement. As we design learning
experiences for such candidates, we focus on three main areas of preparation: the personal,
the professional, and the practical. Our focus on the personal, relational aspects of education
is our key distinctive, the core value which connects our educational philosophy to our
Christian belief system, our emphasis on community, and our commitment to diversity. It is
from this concept of the personal with its emphasis on the teacher as nurturer that our motto,
Touching Lives One Student at a Time, has been developed.
I. Personal: The Teacher as Nurturer
Teacher education program completers of Trinity College and Trinity Graduate School will:
IA. Focus on the student as a whole person and as a unique image-bearer of God; know
developmental theories and understand how a student's cognitive, physical, emotional,
ethical, and spiritual development influences learning.
IB. Maintain high expectations for each student, spend time with students, encourage their
gifts and support areas of individual special need.
IC. Function as an advocate for all children; be aware of and comply with regulations and
guidelines related to all students.
ID. Understand and value cultural and community diversity; use students' individual
experiences, language, and culture to enrich instruction, with a commitment to
educational equity for all students.
IE. Create a learning environment that fosters curiosity, discovery, and problem solving;
modifying environmental arrangements to promote positive behavior and engaged
learning for all students.
IF. Facilitate a learning community that supports caring social relationships and effective
collaboration, both within the classroom and among faculty.
IG. Collaborate effectively with parents/guardians to provide appropriate learning
opportunities for all children.
II. Professional: The Teacher as Reflective Practitioner
Teacher education program completers of Trinity College and Trinity Graduate School will:
IIA. Be knowledgeable in all content areas; thoroughly prepared in those they intend to
teach.
IIB. Display enthusiasm for and commitment to their major field(s) of interest; model lifelong
learning.
IIC. Know contemporary educational issues and reforms; utilize that knowledge in support
of student learning.
IID. Reflect upon, think critically about, and evaluate educational processes and outcomes;
monitor and modify instruction in response to learner feedback.
IIE. Establish rapport with students, co-workers, administrators, and community
stakeholders; exhibit awareness of self and others.
IIF. Demonstrate a commitment to professional and personal ethics; look for ways to foster
positive character development in the classroom.
IIG. Understand the process of educational research; function effectively as teacher-researcher.
III. Practical: The Teacher as Facilitator
Teacher education program completers of Trinity College and Trinity Graduate School will:
IIIA. Communicate effectively; speak clearly and listen carefully; evidence solid command
of both spoken and written English.
IIIB. Integrate educational theory with classroom practice; incorporate standards,
curriculum, content, learning theory, and student development to instructional
planning.
IIIC. Design and conduct interesting and effective learning experiences in order to
accommodate different learning styles and student needs.
IIID. Effectively motivate all students, especially those who are reluctant learners.
IIIE. Understand how students construct knowledge and acquire skills; develop experiential
and interdisciplinary learning opportunities.
IIIF. Foster productive group learning activities; work effectively with student learning
teams.
IIIG. Conduct both whole class and small group discussions with skill.
IIIH. Wisely select and use a variety of teaching materials, tools, and technology to enhance
learning for all students.
IIII. Maintain effective classroom management; use conflict resolution strategies.
IIIJ. Select/construct, and use assessment tools that encourage students to become reflective
and independent learners; provide timely and constructive feedback. ( See Appendix A for an
alignment of the of the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards that inform the outcomes.)
IIIK. Uses an understanding of professional codes, laws, and standards to guide instruction and practice.
Professional Dispositions (See Appendix B for the Professional Dispositions Assessment form (aligned to Conceptual Framework)
Teacher education program completers of Trinity College and Trinity Graduate School will:
Exhibit exemplary professional dispositions that distinguish them among educators.
Trinity education program completers are: Compassionate, committed, emotionally
mature, responsible, teachable, ethical, reflective, collaborative, student-focused, and
inquisitive.
The outcomes and dispositions listed above are the basis for our model, Teaching as a
Mission. As School of Education faculty and staff, we seek to model through our lives, through
our collegial relationships, and through our interactions with candidates the personal,
professional, and practical knowledge candidates need to acquire in order to become excellent
educators in their own classrooms. Viewing teaching as a personal mission suggests that
teachers are responsible to know and value each student and to work towards his or her ultimate
success. Viewing teaching as a professional mission anticipates thorough preparation and
commitment to the disciplines and ethical guidelines of the profession. Finally, viewing teaching
as a practical mission encourages teachers to base their pedagogies on learner-centered strategies
and to look for ways to facilitate learning for all students.
In viewing teaching as a personal mission, candidates in teacher preparation programs
must strive for their personal best, both within themselves and on behalf of their students. They
must learn to value each student with whom they have been entrusted. Regardless of race,
ethnicity, exceptionality or other area of student diversity in their classroom, Trinity's teacher
candidates learn that they are morally and ethically obligated to provide an educational
experience that enables each of their students to experience success. Our graduates learn to
identify with their students and to join with them in creating environments that celebrate
diversity even as they foster unity. These teachers create classrooms where all students are
accepted and valued, where trust is developed, where community is fostered, and where each
member is encouraged to reach her/his full potential. This value, acceptance, trust, and
encouragement is based on biblical principles and is also expressed towards parents, colleagues,
administrators, and others who contribute to the learning experience of these students.
In viewing teaching as a professional mission, future educators must commit themselves
to excellence in all of their academic endeavors (Colossians 3:17: "And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him."). Through active engagement in classroom experiences, Trinity candidates are able to test educational concepts in real-world
venues. Our graduates are given many opportunities to practice critical reflection of both their
own and others' pedagogies and professional behaviors. Such reflection allows our candidates
to assume a measure of control over their own learning and to in turn create environments where
their students are similarly encouraged to share responsibility with their teachers for what they
will learn. Trinity graduates are recognized as distinctive among their colleagues in the
workplace for their professional skills and dispositions.
In viewing teaching as a practical mission, our candidates receive many opportunities to
practice current, research-based pedagogical skills. Following the example of Jesus, the Master
Teacher, who taught by demonstration and parables, Trinity's teacher educators focus on creative
learning experiences that allow our candidates to understand and employ a variety of strategies
and assessments that promote student learning and motivation. Through such modeling
experiences, our graduates internalize the concept of teacher as facilitator, and look for ways to
assist their students in constructing their own knowledge and in working as a part of a
collaborative team.
Commitment to Diversity: As seen in the core values discussed above, Trinity
International University has identified community as foundational to its mission objectives. "We
seek to be a learning community that operates by the ethics and values of the Kingdom of God.
The makeup of the community should be a reflection of the breadth and diversity of the family of
God. The way we treat people should be consistent with the morals, justice, compassion,
humility, and love of our Lord. Interaction with students should both reflect an attitude of
service to them as individuals and take advantage of the opportunities for mentoring and
modeling and personal development (Trinity College Catalog 2005-2006 p. 11.)." Further, in its mission statement, the University includes "international identity" as one of its distinctives. "We seek to reflect the worldwide purposes of
God and the richness of his people drawn from ‘every tribe and tongue.' (Trinity College Catalog 2005-2006 p. 10.)." Similarly, the
College commits itself to "a sustained interest in every participant," an interest that "respects the
dignity of each person as a unique image-bearer of God (Trinity College Catalog 2005-2006 p. 12.)."
These institutional values and commitments are reflected in the intentional and
systematic process by which candidates are made aware of issues of racism, inequity, and
prejudice that are endemic in American culture. As candidates begin to confront their own
biases and explore the systems of privilege that work against the creation of a just society, they
slowly discover their role in these systems. Such discovery leads to teachable moments when
candidates' attitudes and dispositions towards those who are different from themselves begin to
change. Seeing themselves more clearly allows them to see others more clearly as well. These
insights lead to a new sensitivity that opens channels of communication and supports mutual
understanding in diverse settings, whether that diversity is based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic
status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, or geographical
area. As candidates' awareness grows and sensitivities deepen, they are thus prepared to enter
highly diverse educational settings as peacemakers and as advocates for each of their students.
One thing that helps in the above process is the growing diversity of Trinity's student
population. The racial and ethnic diversity that exists on Trinity's campus provides a context in
which our candidates can explore the concept of difference and experience transformative crosscultural
relationships. Trinity College's student body is atypical among Christian colleges across
the nation. Traditionally, Christian colleges have a very homogeneous student population.
Students are typically Caucasian and come from a higher than average socioeconomic group.
Trinity's percentage of student diversity (29% within the university; 16.6% within the college)
is one of the highest in the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), whose
members are schools with missions similar in nature to Trinity's. In 2005, the University was
awarded the Seventh Annual Racial Harmony Award by the CCCU, based on 1) Trinity's
commitment to diversity, 2) enrollment and retention, 3) programs and initiatives, and 4)
demonstrations of racial harmony, most notably the nationally reported events surrounding
Trinity's response to threatening, racially-charged mail, April 21-29, 2005. The lessons learned
from this event have informed and deepened Trinity's commitment to the pursuit of racial
harmony.
To support and encourage such pursuits, the School of Education has undertaken several
major initiatives in the area of diversity. Trinity College was one of the first private, Christian
colleges to become a university partner of the Golden Apple Foundation. We actively recruit
sophomore education majors who meet the requirements for a Golden Apple Pathways Scholar
and encourage them to apply for this scholarship. In 2000, the School of Education was given
the privilege of awarding annually several substantial memorial scholarships to education majors
committed to teaching in highly diverse and/or under-resourced educational settings.
One of the most exciting additions to our program is the partnership that we began in
2000 with the North Suburban Special Education District (NSSED) and which continues today.
Young adults (aged 18-21) with significant disabilities are paired with education majors in ED
330: Introduction to Special Education. The primary focus of this program is to provide ageappropriate
personal, social, and life skill development for the NSSED students. The following
year the College began hiring some of these students to work with various campus services;
education majors (and others) who qualify for federal work study monies serve as assistant job
coaches. We see this program as a powerful, hands-on opportunity to demystify special
education and to allow our candidates to apply what they learn in their courses while working
with students who have special needs.
Not only does Trinity encourage diversity among its students and support experiences
with diversity on our campus, the field and clinical placements are intentionally planned to
further enhance candidates' awareness of and experience with diverse school settings. Trinity's
location allows us to partner not only with schools that are typically included on lists of the top
schools in the nation, but also with schools where the majority of students qualify for free and
reduced lunch. Candidates refine their teaching skills in both urban and suburban settings, and
candidates in all programs are required to complete fieldwork in a highly diverse and/or underresourced
setting. Such placements are uniquely powerful, transforming the concepts explored
in class (through readings, discussions, role play, and videos) into real world experiences, into
children with names, faces, hopes, and dreams. We ask our candidates to reflect on their
experiences in these settings, realizing that such reflection helps them to process what they've
learned and encourages them to consider teaching in low income schools - schools that need and
deserve quality instruction from teachers who understand the challenges and are willing and able
to work with limited resources. Our candidates believe that our emphasis on diverse placements
is one of the distinctives of our program.
In their methods courses, and expecially in clinical practice, candidates are expected to
differentiate their curriculum and create lesson plans that address and meet the diverse needs of
individual students in their classrooms.
The School of Education actively seeks diversity in its faculty and staff. The
University's Minority Faculty Recruitment Plan was written in 1999 at the urging of the School
of Education and has been followed in every faculty search since that time. We have been able
to increase the racial and ethnic diversity of our faculty both through full time hires and addition
of adjunct faculty to meet the needs of our growing programs. Our faculty has a wide range of
experiences working with diverse populations of all kinds. Three of our faculty members taught
in schools with under-resourced and/or ELL populations, one does extensive research in this
area, and another taught for twenty years in foreign countries. Another has taught high school
students with learning disabilities both in one-on-one educational therapy sessions and in the
context of a high school resource room. Faculty also have experience working with gifted
populations both in the U.S. and abroad. This breadth of experience assists us as we prepare our
candidates for service to diverse populations.
Commitment to Technology: Trinity's School of Education has a strong commitment to
technology. Not only do faculty members use technology to enhance student learning in the
courses they teach, but most courses require candidates to create either a unit of instruction or a
project through the use of technology. To support this expectation, the technology course was
moved to the beginning of our programs, so that candidates have the knowledge and skills to use
technology as a teaching and learning tool throughout their program.
From 2001-2005, the School of Education was a participant in a PT3 grant (ThinkQuest).
As a member of a consortium of fifteen colleges and universities across the country, the School
of Education was awarded grant monies to train faculty to use web-based technology in their
education courses. As a result, preservice education candidates created web-based projects that
have subsequently been uploaded to ThinkQuest and are available as a resource for preservice
candidates in all of the fifteen participating colleges of education. Trained candidates have been
able to offer workshops, serve as tutors and coordinate the efforts of the ThinkQuest grant. Not
only have our candidates produced outstanding projects because of this involvement, but
Trinity's computer labs have been upgraded with the hardware and software necessary for
completion of such projects. Candidates are now empowered and confident in their use of
technology. This is a direct outcome of the ThinkQuest philosophy that favors use of technology
to create one's own projects over manipulation of software created by others. Trinity faculty
present technology as a means to encourage and develop higher order thinking, both in
candidates and, by extension, in the students they will one day have in their classrooms.
In 2004-2005, Trinity College piloted a new course management system called Moodle.
This tool enables professors to post syllabi, monitor threaded discussions or real-time discussions
with their students, post grades, and receive assignments and exams. The majority faculty
members in the School of Education now use this or a similar course management system, thus
modeling for candidates technology's value as a tool to enhance student learning.
We are aware that in some of our area schools, K-12 students similarly experience
technology as a tool to use in their studies, much as it's used in the workplace. Through this,
they learn that they are in control of technology. Sadly, in under-resourced schools, students
have fewer opportunities to use technology, and when they do, it is often software programs
designed for remedial work or computer games offered as rewards and incentives. While not
explicit, many of these students are learning that technology controls them. Our candidates see
these differences in their field experiences and are led to reflect on the inequity inherent in such
disparity. While excellent instruction can and does occur in under-resourced schools, students in
these settings are not being given the opportunity to feel empowered and confident in their use of
technology. This, in turn, affects their career potential in a highly technological job market.
Because our candidates are concerned about issues of equity and social justice, many are drawn
to highly diverse and under-resourced schools, believing that they can make a difference in the
lives of their students.
Knowledge Base for Teacher Education
Undergirding the concepts discussed above are source documents that have helped shape
our thinking about what is truly important in education and have thus informed the development
of our framework. As defined by Galluzzo & Pankratz (1990), the term knowledge base implies
"a body of literature that supports the substance and structure of the professional curriculum and
informs decision making in practice" (p. 12). As we put together our program outcomes, we
were aware of the philosophers, researchers, and theorists whose thinking and writing
contributed to our individual development as educators and to our collaborative understanding of
what constitutes excellence in education. We discovered that we held a common view of the
general qualities we wanted our graduates to embody. Our commitment to these qualities guides
the structure of our program as well as curricular decisions related to courses offered and the
specific content that they contain. During our Fall 2005 faculty retreat, we revisited this topic
and began a list of additional individuals and theories that guide us today; we will continue to
clarify and refine this resource in future meetings. A sizeable and clearly articulated body of
literature, including 1) seminal works by the educators who developed key theories, and 2)
current works built on these foundations, supports our intention that teacher education graduates
at Trinity will function as nurturers, reflective practitioners, and facilitators in their classrooms.
The Teacher as Nurturer
In the May, 1995, issue of Phi Delta Kappan, guest editors Robert J. Chaskin and Diana
Mendley Rauner present a series of feature articles which focus on the topic of "Youth and
Caring." These articles highlight the increasing attention given to the concept of "care" in
schools, a concept which represents a considerable departure from the traditional view of the
teacher as a professionally distanced authority figure whose primary concern is test scores and
who adheres to the popular adage not to smile until after Christmas. However, the Kappan
articles explore the importance of structuring the school community so that children feel cared
for and are in turn encouraged to care for others. Within such a community, the respect that
exists between teachers, students, staff, administrators, and parents creates an effective culture
for learning, a place where candidates choose to do their best and where teachers are free to
assist them. Believing that caring is the "glue that binds teachers and students together and
makes life in classrooms meaningful," Noblit, Rogers and McCadden (1995) explore the
possibilities of caring to provide an alternative to the bureaucratic model of education with its
focus on control, competition, rules, and regimentation. Similarly, Noddings (1995, 2001)
argues that "caring for students is fundamental in teaching and that developing people with a
strong capacity for care is a major objective of responsible education" (1995, p. 678). Noddings
(1992) believes that schools should legitimize time spent in building relations of care and trust
because such relationships encourage meaningful involvement with the themes being explored in
the classroom. "Caring relations can prepare children for an initial receptivity to all sorts of
experiences and subject matters" while "contractual relations can keep them busy for a long time
at work for which they have no real talent or interest" (p. 36). Epstein (1995) focuses on the
importance of building partnerships between the school, family, and community. She writes
about the difference between viewing children as students and viewing them as children.
Students are seen as the responsibility of the school and as such are separated from their families;
children, however, are more clearly seen as part of a family (Cole, 1995). Teaching children
requires educators, families, and the community to work together to articulate common goals and
to develop effective means of attaining them. Nurturing children requires us to demonstrate the
fruit of the Spirit as described in Galatians 5:22: "Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness,
goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." (NIV Study Bible, 1985).
In today's society it appears that we have lost the awareness of children as our most
valuable asset. As Kozol (1991, 2005) has noted, we blithely spend billions on sports stadiums
and prisons while fighting for every educational dollar. In Savage Inequalities, Kozol (1991)
highlights the myriad of problems caused by grossly inequitable and inadequate funding for
education. Marian Wright Edelman (1993, 1995, 2000), founder of the Children's Defense Fund,
follows with her advocacy for all children, especially those who are poor. Both Kozol and
Edelman would agree that in order to effectively address current inequities, educators must
examine their preconceptions and work towards developing high expectations for all students,
regardless of racial, ethnic, or socio-economic background. Rosenthal's (1968) classic study of
teacher expectations underscores the power of expectations and laid the groundwork for further
examinations of the self-fulfilling prophecy in education (Rist, 1970). To assist educators in
addressing the issues arising out of our increasingly diverse student populations, Sleeter and
Grant (1994) describe five general approaches to a multicultural education, approaches ranging
from "teaching the culturally different" (an assimilationist approach) to "education that is
multicultural and social reconstructionist." Teachers ascribing to this latter view encourage
students to think critically about social issues and to work constructively to achieve social justice
for all people. Nieto (1999, 2003) provides a framework for understanding multicultural
education in its sociopolitical context and explores the many ways that racism and discrimination
manifest themselves in school settings. Through case studies and a rich body of literature, she
challenges us to consider how "personal, social, political, cultural, and educational factors affect
the success or failure of students in today's classrooms. She believes that "schools need to
accommodate their policies and practices to students' needs and realities if they are to be safe
and nurturing learning environments" (Nieto, 2003, p. 306).
The concept of caring includes a focus on values and morals (Noddings, 1997, 2002) .
Teachers cannot avoid teaching values. Because of this, it is important that they think carefully
about how they can intentionally and responsibly do so (Cohen, 2001). Wynne and Ryan (1997)
explore the ways in which teachers function as moral educators, through modeling as well as by
direct guidance. They also encourage the development of community in both schools and
classrooms, believing that members of a successfully functioning school community will choose
to help and serve one another through pro-social activities and cooperative learning projects.
Viewed as a moral act, education reaches beyond the narrow confines of lectures, worksheets,
and homework assignments. Instead, it involves creating a space "in which obedience to truth is
practiced" (Palmer, 1993). Palmer writes of the difference between crowding and space as it is
found in educational settings:
To sit in a class where the teacher stuffs our minds with information, organizes it with
finality, insists on having the answers while being utterly uninterested in our views, and
forces us into a grim competition for grades -- to sit in such a class is to experience a lack
of space for learning. But to study with a teacher who not only speaks but listens, who
not only gives answers but asks questions and welcomes our insights, who provides
information and theories that do not close doors but open new ones, who encourages
students to help each other learn to study -- with such a teacher is to know the power of a
learning space. (p. 70-71)
The Teacher as Reflective Practitioner
Critical to the ongoing development of education as an honored profession is the ability of
educators to think insightfully and reflectively about the foundations of American education,
current policy issues, trends in educational research, and perhaps most importantly, about their
own theoretical perspective and practice. Kliebard (1995) makes a compelling case for why
teachers should study the history of their profession and concludes that such study "unearths old
and often-buried assumptions imbedded in the questions we ask and thereby exposes them to
critical scrutiny" (p. 198). Knowing and being able to think critically about the past enables us
to more effectively grapple with the complex and often bewildering problems of the present.
The teacher as reflective practitioner (Daniels, 2002; Kinsella, 2001; McCormick, 2001;
Schön, 1987) appears to be a currently popular concept, but it is a truly challenging task to
critically reflect on one's own practice, and even more challenging to teach pre-service teachers
to do likewise. Time and the "tyranny of the urgent" frequently interfere with the disciplined,
practiced reflection that can result in thoughtful instruction and improved pedagogy. More
importantly, each of us has a deeply imbedded aversion to questioning our "tried and true"
assumptions about what works for us in our classrooms and with our students. Acknowledging
this aversion, Brookfield (1995) nonetheless sees critical reflection as a "hopeful activity." As
we learn to view our practice from different perspectives (through our students' eyes, through
peer critique, etc.), we open the possibility for transformative change not only within ourselves
but in our schools and perhaps even within the profession at large (Cranton & King, 2003).
Developing the habit of thoughtfulness in one's practice requires great sensitivity to
students, supervisors and peers, parents, the community, and to the cultural mores of the society
in which one works. In describing his concept of pedagogical thoughtfulness, van Manen (1991)
writes that "children who come to school come from somewhere. Teachers need to have some
sense of what it is that children bring with them, what defines their present understandings,
mood, emotional state, and readiness to deal with the subject matter and the world of the
school"(p. 7). He goes on to note that "it is possible to learn all the techniques of instruction but
to remain pedagogically unfit as a teacher. . . . To become a teacher includes something that
cannot be taught formally: the most personal embodiment of a pedagogical thoughtfulness" (p.
9). And one way to develop this thoughtfulness is to be willing to learn from one's own
experience and mistakes. Zeichner (1994) underscores the importance of retaining the critical
edge to one's reflection, warning against a watered-down version which can all too easily
confirm one's assumptions rather than provide an opportunity to explore them.
The development of a professional portfolio provides candidates an opportunity to practice
reflection, starting with their entry level portfolio in which they begin to examine the teaching
profession and the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that they will be expected to develop
during their program. As they complete courses and fieldwork, they continue to reflect on the
professional standards and look for connections between what they are learning and what they
will be expected to know (Verkler, 2000). By the end of their programs, candidates have
gathered a wide range of artifacts that allow them to demonstrate and reflect on their growth as a
professional and to identify areas for future professional development (Bullock & Hawk, 2005;
Campbell, Cignette, Melenyzer, Nettles, & Wyman, 2004; Costantino, & De Lorenzo, 2002).
The Teacher as Facilitator
As we work to refine and improve our own pedagogical skills, we seek both to model these
skills for our candidates as well as to provide them with opportunities to develop and practice
teaching strategies informed by current theory and sharpened by mentored practice. Because we
believe that research on the brain (Jensen, 1998), on effective schools (Cruickshank, 1990), and
on best practices (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 1993, 2005), supports constructivist learning
theory (Brooks & Brooks, 1993) and an emphasis on experiential learning (Dewey, 1938, Kolb,
1984), we plan our curriculum and design our instructional strategies to reflect our commitment
to active student involvement. While we do not minimize the value of direct instruction and
introduce the candidates to the seven step, Hunter model for lesson planning (Hunter, 1994), we
believe that the activity-based approach with its focus on such strategies as cooperative groups
(Slavin, 1990), discovery learning (Bruner, 1960), problem-posing (Freire, 1970; Lambros,
2002; Torp & Sage, 2002) and decision-making (Beyer, 1988) allows for greater development of
the process of critical and creative thinking. While using these strategies to enhance instruction,
the teacher supports students' interests, stimulates curiosity, creates a "need-to-know" and
empowers the candidates to become responsible for their own learning.
Because of our primary focus on the teacher as nurturer, our view of appropriate classroom
management rests mainly in what French and Raven (1959) have termed "referent or attractive
power." This source of authority is based on the respect and trust of one's students. Glasser
(1990) supports this type of leadership, believing that it is important for teachers to create warm
and nurturing classroom atmospheres where students feel a sense of belonging and a belief that
their needs will be consistently met. Learning students' names, encouraging them, and treating
them with respect and fairness assists teachers in creating such supportive environments and
allows them to connect with reluctant learners and discover ways to motivate them to become
involved (Haberman, 1995).
International research (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999; Willis, 2002) and increased focus on
standards resulting from the No Child Left Behind legislation (Resnick & Nolan, 1995; Scherer,
2001), has not only affected P-12 schools, but also informs teacher educators as they prepare
teachers for success in teaching all students with equity and excellence. O'Shea's (2005)
Standards Achievement Planning Cycle offers a practical, systemic, and tested process for
implementing state learning standards, leading to "standards achievement as the goal of daily
instruction" (p. x).
When considering ways for students to demonstrate what they have learned, we believe
that it is important for teachers to design assessment tasks and evaluation tools that reflect the
kinds of learning they believe to be important (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Wiggins (1989)
asserts that "authentic assessments replicate the challenges and standards of performance that
typically face writers, business people, scientists, community leaders, designers, or historians.
These include writing essays and reports, conducting individual and group research, designing
proposals and mock-ups, and so on" (p.704). Although not without their difficulties, the
concepts of standards-aligned alternative and authentic assessment techniques such as portfolios,
projects, videotaping, computer simulations, and community activities are one way to vary the
teacher's responsibility to verify and evaluate students' learning.
Having said all of the above, we ultimately agree with Palmer (1998) when he states that
"good teaching cannot be reduced to technique; good teaching comes from the identity and
integrity of the teacher" (p. 10). A focus on the human heart and its ability to reflect and
transmit the love that God has for His children is far more powerful than all our current reform
initiatives. "In our rush to reform education, we have forgotten a simple truth: reform will never
be achieved by renewing appropriations, restructuring schools, rewriting curricula, and revising
texts if we continue to demean and dishearten the human resource called the teacher on whom so
much depends" (p. 3). When we lose heart, we lose also our ability to encourage and inspire our
students. What is needed is for us to take heart again, and Palmer points to an inner view of
authority which allows us to do just that:
External tools of power have occasional utility in teaching, but they are no substitute for
authority, the authority that comes from the teacher's inner life. The clue is in the word
itself, which has author at its core. Authority is granted to people who are perceived as
authoring their own words, their own actions, their own lives, rather than playing a
scripted role at great remove from their own hearts. When teachers depend on the
coercive powers of law or technique, they have no authority at all. . . . Authority comes
as I reclaim my identity and integrity, remembering my selfhood and my sense of
vocation. Then teaching can come from the depths of my own truth and the truth that is
within my students has a chance to respond in kind. (p. 33)
Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Professional, State Standards
In 2003-04, the unit aligned its candidate outcomes with the Illinois Professional
Teaching Standards and began using this standards-aligned form to evaluate candidates at midpoint
(formative) and at the conclusion of their professional semester. An expanded version
delineating this standards-alignment (by element) was included from that point on in the Clinical
Practice Handbook given to all cooperating teachers, university supervisors, and candidates in
their professional semester (see Appendix A).
In 2004-05, as the unit prepared for its next state review, additional standards-alignment
was developed that included NCATE, Illinois content area, and core language arts/technology
standards for all teachers (Table 1). These standards were aligned with the program outcomes
(institutional standards and dispositions) described in the conceptual framework above (pp. 5-6).
Future plans include refinement and simplification of program outcomes and expansion of the
framework to reflect recently approved Type 75 certification (advanced program).
Table 1: Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Standards,
Program Elements, and Unit Assessment System
References Cited in Knowledge Base for Teacher Education
Beyer, B.K. (1988). Developing a thinking skills program. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brookfield, S.D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brooks, J.G. & Brooks, MG. (2000). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist
classrooms (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Random House.
Bullock, A. A. & Hawk, P. P. (2005). Developing a teaching portfolio: A guide for preservice
and practicing teachers (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Campbell, D. M., Cignetti, P. B., Melenyzer, B. J., Nettles, D. H. & Wyman, R. M., Jr. (2004).
How to develop a professional portfolio: A manual for teachers (3rd ed.). Boston:
Pearson.
Cohen, J. (Ed.) (2001). Caring classrooms/intelligent schools: The social emotional education
of young children. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cole, R. W. (1995). Educating everybody's children: Diverse teaching strategies for diverse
learners. Alexandria, VA: ACSD.
Costantino, P. M. & De Lorenzo, M. N. (2002). Developing a professional teaching portfolio:
A guide for success. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cranton, P. & King, K. P. (2003). Transformative learning as a professional developmental
goal. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 98, 31-37.
Cruickshank, D. R. (1990). Research that informs teachers and teacher educators.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Daniels, D. C. (2002). Becoming a reflective practitioner. What research says. Middle School
Journal, 33:5, 52-56.
Dewey, J. (1938, 1998). Experience and education, 60th anniversary edition. West Lafayette,
IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
Edelman, M. W. (1993). The measure of our success: A letter to my children and yours. New
York: Harper.
Edelman, M. W. (1995). Guide my feet: Prayers and meditations for our children. Boston:
Beacon.
Edelman, M. W. (2000). Lanterns: A memoir of mentors. New York: Harper.
37
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share.
Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: W. W. Norton
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New
York: Continuum.
French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in
social power (p. 118-149). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Galluzzo, G. R. & Pankratz, R. S. (1990). Five attributes of a teacher education program
knowledge base. Journal of Teacher Education, 4(4), 7-14.
Glasser, W. (1990) The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York:
Harper & Row.
Haberman, M. (1995). Star teachers of children in poverty. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta
Pi.
Hunter, M. (1994). Enhancing teaching. New York: Macmillan.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Kinsella, E. A. (2001). Reflections on reflective practice. Canadian Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 68:3. 195-198.
Kliebard, H. M. (1995). Why history of education? The Journal of Educational Research, 88,
194-199.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Crown
Publishers.
Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America.
New York: Crown Publishers.
Lambros, A. (2002). Problem-based learning in K-8 classrooms: A teacher's guide to
implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McCormick, R. S. (2001). Is it just natural? Beginning teachers' growth in reflective practice.
Issues in Teacher Education, 10:2, 55-67.
38
The Holy Bible, New International Version (1984). Colorado Springs, CO: The International
Bible Society.
Nieto, S. (1999) The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Nieto, S. (2003). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (4th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Noblit, G.W., Rogers, D. L., & McCadden, B. M. (1995). In the meantime: The possibilities of
caring. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 680-685.
Noddings, N. (1997). A morally defensible mission for schools in the 21st century. In Clinchy,
E. (Ed.) Transforming public education for America's future. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Noddings, N. (2001). The care tradition: Beyond "add women and stir." Theory into
Practice, 40:1, 29-34.
Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education.
New York: Teachers College Press
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Noddings, N. (1995). Teaching themes of care. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 675-679.
O'Shea, M. R. (2005). From standards to success. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Palmer, P. (1983). To know as we are known: Education as a spiritual journey. San Francisco:
Harper and Row.
Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Resnick, L. B., & Nolan, K. L. (1995). Standards for education. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Debating
the future of American education: Do we need national standards and assessments? (pp.
94-119). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Rist, R.C. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in
ghetto education. Harvard Education Review, 40, 411-450.
Rosenthal, R. (1968, 1992). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectations and pupils'
intellectual development. New York: Irvington.
39
Scherer, M. (2001). How and why standards can improve student achievement: A conversation
with Robert J. Marzano. Educational Leadership, 59(1), 14-18.
Schön, D. A. (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching
and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sleeter, C. E. & Grant, C.A. (1994). Making choices for multicultural education: Five
approaches to race, class, and gender. (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-
Hall
Stigler, J. W. & Hiebert, J. (1999) The teaching gap. New York: The Free Press.
Torp, L. & Sage, S. (2002). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-16
education (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness.
Albany, New York: SUNY Press.
Verkler, K. W. (2000). Let's reflect: The professional portfolio as a prerequisite for internship.
Action in Teacher Education, 22:2, 116-121.
Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable measurement. Phi Delta
Kappan, 70, 703-713.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (ASCD ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Willis, S. (2002). Creating a knowledge base for teaching: A conversation with James Stigler.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 6-11.
Wynne, E. and Ryan, K. (1997). Reclaiming our schools: Teaching character, academics, and
discipline. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zeichner, K. M. (1994). Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflective practice
in teaching and teacher education. In I. Calgren, G. Handal, and S. Vaage (eds.), Teachers'
minds and actions: Research on teachers' thinking and practice. Bristol, PA: Falmer
Press.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H. & Hyde, A. (1993). Best practice: New standards for teaching and
learning in America's schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H. & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice: Today's standards for teaching
and learning in America's schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
