Revised 6/18/2013 i The University of Texas at Brownsville

The University of Texas at Brownsville
College of Education
Conceptual Framework
Revised 6/18/2013
i
Table of Contents OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 3 MISSION AND VISION STATEMENTS ...................................................................... 4 The UTB Vision and Mission ...................................................................................................................................... 4 College of Education Vision and Mission .................................................................................................................. 5 College of Education Mission ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Shared Vision .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 UNIT PHILOSOPHY, PURPOSE AND GOALS ......................................................... 6 Philosophy and Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Values ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Goals ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8 EVOLUTION AND OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .................. 9 KNOWLEDGE BASE .................................................................................................... 11 Guiding Principles .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Pedagogical Leadership........................................................................................................................................... 11 Inquiry ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Interculturalism ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Interrelatedness ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Technology ............................................................................................................................................................... 15 KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND DISPOSITIONS ............................................................... 16 Undergraduate Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions ........................................................................................ 16 Graduate Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions................................................................................................... 21 UNIT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM SUMMARY .................................................................... 24 TRANSITION POINTS .................................................................................................... 25 CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE DATA ............................................................................ 27 PROGRAM DATA ............................................................................................................ 28 UNIT OPERATION DATA............................................................................................... 29 A CULTURE OF ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................... 29 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SUMMARY ................................................................... 31
APPENDIX 4-­‐1 ................................................................................................................ 41 ii
Overview
The University of Texas at Brownsville is a Hispanic Serving Institution has been a member of
The University of Texas System since 1991. UTB serves more than 12,000 students at its
campus, located in Brownsville, Texas. UTB now receives nearly $6 million in research funding
each year, has more than 150 undergraduate programs (certificates and associate’s and
bachelor’s degrees), and 23 graduate programs, including a Doctorate of Education in
Curriculum and Instruction (UTB, 2011a). UTB ranks number 2 nationally in the number of
mathematics degrees awarded to Hispanic students, ranks 20th nationally in the number of
bachelor’s degrees awarded to Hispanics students, and ranks 50th nationally in the number of
master’s degrees awarded to Hispanics.
Located on the lower Texas-Mexico border opposite Matamoros, Mexico, UTB students, staff
and faculty have access to the social, cultural and intellectual richness that a transnational area
provides 93%. The student body is comprised of 93% Hispanic and approximately 90% receive
some form of financial aid. The Lower Rio Grande Valley, however, is also an area of extreme
poverty. According to U.S. Census figures, Cameron County, of which Brownsville is the county
seat, is documented as among the poorest counties in the United States. The county has a median
family income of $30,950 as compared to the state’s $50,049. Approximately, 34% live below
the poverty level as compared to 16% in the state of Texas. As a result of this dynamic, students
are made aware not only of the opportunities, but also—through theory, practice and experiences
working with children and adults representing a host of ethnically, culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds—of the complex and profound educational challenges of urban and rural
border settings.
The College of Education (COE) is the primary unit responsible for the preparation of teachers
and other educational professionals at UTB. We have a long history of preparing professional
personnel to meet the diverse educational needs of the Lower Rio Grande Valley and South
Texas. The COE is one of the university’s nine academic colleges and schools, which are
comprised of a diverse and international faculty. The college is composed of an administrative
unit (Office of the Dean), one research center and four academic departments: Teaching,
Learning and Innovation (TLI); Language, Literacy and Intercultural Studies (LLIS); Health and
Human Performance (HPP); and Educational, Psychology and Leadership Studies (EPLS).
Working in cross-disciplinary partnerships with other colleges and schools throughout the
institution, our teacher preparation unit (COE) offers 19 undergraduate programs which lead to
teacher certification. Of these 19 programs, 4 are nationally accredited by NASM and 13 are
recognized with conditions (RWC) by their Specialized Professional Organizations (SPAs). All
19 of these programs are resubmitting (where applicable) for full recognition in fall 2013. We
also offer one Post Baccalaureate degree option. Initial programs provide a rigorous, relevant,
3
evidence-based curriculum designed to prepare candidates for professional practice and
pedagogical leadership in one or more teaching domains.
Our advanced programs prepare practitioners to excel in increased levels of professional and
pedagogical leadership, and prepare emerging scholars to contribute in more nuanced and
innovative ways to their respective academic, research and professional communities. Our
teacher preparation unit offers 15 active specializations at the master’s level. The Community
Counseling and School Counseling programs are nationally accredited by CACREP. The
Educational Technology Program is Nationally Recognized by (AECT). This innovative
program was also rated 4th in the nation in the category or student services and technology and
39th overall by U.S. News & World Report 2013 ranking of Best Online Education Programs.
Five other master’s level specializations in Educational Leadership and Special Education are
recognized with conditions by relevant SPAs. The Masters Bilingual Education program and
Master’s C & I program (representing 6 categories of specialization) do not have SPA standards.
At the Doctoral level, our unit offers an Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction with specializations
in the areas of Bilingual Studies, Educational Leadership, Educational Technology and Higher
Education Teaching. Programs at all levels offer a combined emphasis on pedagogical
leadership, methodological skill, content knowledge, professionalism and technological
competency along with an emphasis on the ethical core of education, learning to be in an
increasingly diverse world (Johnson & Johnson, 2009; hooks 2003; Noddings, 2003; van Manen,
1991; Greene, 1967).
Mission and Vision Statements
Our framework builds on the institutional commitment to excellence in teaching and learning,
and focuses on the preparation of highly skilled professionals who can excel in an intercultural
world and have a positive impact on all students and learning communities that they in turn
serve.
The UTB Vision and Mission
The University of Texas at Brownsville aspires to be recognized as the nation’s premier
university, dedicated to designing innovative processes to strengthen student learning and
establish a culture of civic responsibility through community engagement (UTB, 2012a).
The University of Texas at Brownsville draws upon the intersection of cultures and languages at
the southern border and Gulf Coast of the United States to develop knowledgeable citizens and
emerging leaders who are engaged in the civic life of their community. It embraces teaching
excellence, active inquiry, lifelong learning, rigorous scholarship, and research in service to the
common good. The University promotes the interdisciplinary search for new knowledge that
advances social and physical well-being and economic development through commercialization,
while honoring the creative and environmental heritage of its region (UTB, 2012b).
4
College of Education Vision and Mission
The vision of the College of Education (COE) is to be consistently recognized as a fully
accredited and internationally respected college in the areas of science, educational technology
and intercultural studies. Our vision also includes becoming nationally and internationally
recognized for preparing highly skilled teachers, counselors, administrators, educational
researchers and professionals who excel in school environments as well as in other economic and
service areas that require training, human resources development and lifelong learning.
The COE’s teacher preparation programs will be central to the mission of the university and will have
national prominence. We will be at the forefront in programs for English Language Learners as well
as through our teacher preparation, P-16 and lifelong education initiatives, and we will be a model for
helping close the student achievement gap.
All of these will require that the COE be noted for the quality of its graduates, the scholarship of
its faculty and the leadership and service they provide to local, regional, national and
international educational communities. In summary, our vision is to generate and sustain a
dynamic and diverse scholarly community that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Develops collaborative, interdisciplinary, innovative teachers and leaders
Engages in scholarly inquiry that transforms educational practice in the priority areas of
science, educational technology and intercultural studies
Enhances the human condition by fostering a dynamic learning community among
faculty, students and communities across disciplines and agencies
Reinforces reflective practice that cultivates a continuous analysis of values,
assumptions, techniques and strategies underlying best practices and the consequences
such practices pose for people, their communities and environment
Generates strategic collaborations with all stakeholders
Promotes social justice, tolerance and equity in an atmosphere where diversity and integrity are
embedded in all our policies and practices (COE,2011)
College of Education Mission
“Teaching, Learning and Scholarly Inquiry for an Intercultural World”
The mission of the COE is three-fold:
• Prepare highly skilled professionals to assume roles and positions in teaching, research,
educational leadership and human development
• Provide undergraduate and graduate programs grounded in evidence-based professional practice,
collaboration, knowledge acquisition, reflective inquiry, pedagogical leadership and respect for the
culturally and linguistically diverse learner
5
•
Continuously assert ourselves as an integral part of local, state, national and
international scholarly networks and communities of practice that promote innovation
and contribute to scientific, educational, economic and social change (COE, 2011)
Shared Vision
The COE vision and mission revolve around preparing highly skilled professionals to excel in an
intercultural world. The COE’s motto, “Teaching, Learning and Scholarly Inquiry for an
Intercultural World,” reciprocally affirms the COE’s responsiveness to teaching, research and
service. Our vision has evolved from collaborative partnerships among academic colleges and
schools and between the COE and its P-12 colleagues. COE programs that prepare teachers and
other educational professionals are central to the mission of the university, which is to help
students at all levels develop the skills of critical thinking, quantitative analysis and effective
communication. Each of these interrelated skills supports inquiry, interrelatedness and
interculturalism, and sustains pedagogical leadership. In tandem with this mission, the COE
aims to provide pedagogical and professional leadership to the systems of educational
opportunity at work in the transnational, multilingual region it serves, while working to ensure
that COE faculty, teacher candidates and graduates have a positive impact on the diversity of
learners whose lives they touch (Gándara, & Contreras, 2010; Padilla, 2010; Rose, 2009;
Villegas & Davis, 2008).
Unit Philosophy, Purpose and Goals
Philosophy and Purpose
The COE, with its openness and respect for others, is committed to excellence, collaboration and
the creation of partnerships. We are dedicated to designing new and creative avenues to support
students, staff and faculty. We value collegiality, professionalism, service and ethical behavior
(COE, 2011). Our unit aims to build strong theoretical foundations in every student in order to
produce teachers capable of understanding the complexities of diverse societies, so that they
might have a positive impact not only on student learning but also on the emergent educational,
community and professional contexts and structures within which learning occurs (Dewey,
1938a, p. 35). Nicolaides & Yorks (2008) note: “While in actuality, the world has always been
complex, technology and globalization make this complexity foreground, not background for
learning through the conundrums that confront us” (p. 58). Likewise, our unit’s emphasis on
inquiry, interculturalism, interrelatedness and pedagogical leadership is aimed at cultivating the
unit’s capacity for innovative ideas and action in the face of the perpetual complexity involved in
teaching and learning at every level. Dispositions related to our guiding principles provide a
foundation for our capacity to effect educational innovation and positive change within our
programs and classrooms, and in larger systems of educational opportunity. We see this as
central to the notion of pedagogical leadership and requisite to the preparation of highly skilled
educational professionals prepared to excel—and help others excel—in a complex, intercultural
world (Robinson, 1999, p. 5).
6
Our programs emphasize content knowledge in specific subjects as well as general pedagogical
knowledge. As our curriculum and its assessment indicate, we work strategically to help
candidates develop the content knowledge and specific, applied skills and methodologies
established by current research as necessary to help all students learn. Since the acquisition of
skills related to technology is an increasingly important feature of our increasingly globalized
world, knowledge, skills and dispositions associated with technology are interwoven within and
among all programs at every level (Hearn & Bridgstock, 2010; Robertson, 2008).
Our teacher preparation programs, as well as our graduate programs, work not only to inculcate
specific methodologies and techniques, but place equal emphasis on developing cognitive and
affective domains that intrinsically relate education to science, psychology, sociology,
anthropology, economics, health, environment, history and philosophy (LeBlanc & Gallavan,
2009; Darling-Hammond, Banks, Zumwalt, Gomez, Sherin, Griesdorn & Finn, 2005). After all,
there is no applied scientific discipline if there is no discipline to apply (Pinar, 2007; Grossman,
Schoenfeld & Lee, 2005; Anderson, Krathwohl [et al.]., 2001; Dewey, 1938b; Whitehead, 1929).
The COE is committed to encouraging our learning community to develop in an atmosphere of
collaborative inquiry in which students learn from the professor, the professor from the student,
and everyone from each other (Kessler, 2007; Doll, 1993). Our unit works to nurture our learning
community based on the idea that all members are constantly learning, each helped by another
(Westheimer, 2008). Learning is a lifelong process that does not end when a class is over or a
degree conferred (Gorard & Selwyn, 2005; Cain, 2001). As Calderhead & Shorrock (1997) note,
“learning to teach … is a complex process. It is also a lengthy process, extending, for most
teachers, well after their initial training” (p. 194). We do our best, through unit policies,
procedures and curriculum, to motivate and support unit administrators, faculty and students in
this ongoing process.
We believe that theory and practice are inextricably linked, and that making this link explicit
through an integrated approach to teaching, scholarship and service is central to the preparation
of effective teachers and educated individuals (Bransford, Darling-Hammond & LePage, 2005;
Aristotle, 2002; Gadamer, 1975; Freire, 1970). Clinical experiences as well as other field
experiences and service-learning projects, integrated with coursework, are an integral part of this
process. Such experiences demand that candidates tie theory to practice as they put content,
professional and pedagogical knowledge into practice in diverse settings. Structured, reflective
components associated with these experiences encourage candidates to synthesize theories of
teaching and learning while fostering candidates’ capacity for self-assessment and continual
improvement. We aim to make sure that all of our programs—at both initial and advanced
levels—highlight assessment and include reflective practice through which theory and practice
are struck into dynamic relation in order to foster an understanding of ourselves, others, and the
world in which we live (Aristotle, 2002; Glickman, 2002; Kessels & Korthagan, 2001; Schon,
1989; Erickson, 1964).
7
Our programmatic aim combines an emphasis on the mastery of methodologies, academic
content, educational technology, pedagogical competencies and skills with the apprehension of
the ethical core of education, which is learning to be (Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Aristotle, 2002:
Noddings, 2003; van Manen, 1991; Greene, 1967; Erickson, 1964). In addition to mastering
knowledge, our unit seeks to embody— through our policies, practices and curriculum—the
tolerance, social cooperation, ethical behavior and aesthetic sensitivity that are central to
effective teaching and learning in an intercultural world (Hearn & Bridgstock, 2010; Rendón,
2009; Rike & Sharp, 2009; Robertson, 2008; Greene, 1988).
Values
Our values shape our philosophy. In turn, our philosophy, as lived through principles of inquiry,
interculturalism, interrelatedness and pedagogical leadership, influences the evolution of the
following values:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Learner-centered education
Academic excellence and integrity
Outstanding teaching and service
Scholarly research and professional leadership
Integration of teaching, research and service with differentiated assignments
Individual and collective excellence
Diversity, equity and social justice
Education of individuals across the human life span
Collegiality, collaboration and ethical behavior
Emerging from our philosophy and guiding principles, these values undergird unit goals and
objectives, and drive a coherent system of unit policies and practices that is periodically assessed
within a context of clearly defined professional norms and procedures. The COE uses data
gathered through these assessments to inform the unit’s continuous improvement efforts and
personnel decisions.
Goals
Unit goals are consistent with the shared vision and mission of the institution, COE values and
the interests expressed by other stakeholders. Current unit goals include:
•
•
•
•
Curricula that reflect sound theory and high-quality, evidence-based practice
Students and graduates who are qualified and diverse
Faculty who are active in scholarly work and service
Effective governance and organizational structure within an environment of open
communication among students, faculty, administrators, staff and community
8
•
•
•
Collaborative and mutually beneficial partnerships with UTB colleges and schools,
school districts and other organizations
Enhanced visibility at local, state, national and international dimensions
Achievement of national and international accreditation and continuous improvement of
the COE
These seven goals are ballasted by our conceptual framework and are supported by professional
literature relevant to the preparation of highly skilled educational professionals who can excel in
an intercultural world, and who are equipped with the knowledge, skills and dispositions needed
to help all students learn.
Evolution and Overview of Conceptual Framework
We view our conceptual framework as a living, coherent set of concepts that co-evolves in
relation with the capacities, needs and opportunities of stakeholders in all aspects relevant to the
preparation of highly skilled educational professionals. Our framework has developed over the
last 10 years in response to institutional assessment efforts and with input from COE faculty
from each department as well as representatives from the dean’s office, faculty and
administrators from UTB colleges outside the COE, students, local school districts and
community members. Input regarding our vision, mission and conceptual framework is informed
by district leaders across our state region via the Lower Rio Grande Valley P-16 Council.
Similarly, our unit now relies on feedback from our Community Advisory Committee and our
Student Advisory Committee in decision making.
Our conceptual framework provides guidance for the coherent development and consistent
implementation of all COE programs. As seen in Figure 1, the multilayered framework revolves
around the COE’s mission to prepare highly skilled professionals to assume roles and positions
in teaching, research, educational leadership, service and human development. The COE carries
out its mission through the collaborative interaction among departments within our college, and
through collaborative efforts with other academic colleges and PK-12 schools.
9
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework
The University of Texas at Brownsville
Intersecting the framework’s center are our four guiding principles: pedagogical leadership,
inquiry, interculturalism, and interrelatedness, around which the unit develops policies and
practices. These principles articulate our expectations for all unit administrators, faculty, students
and graduates. These principles also serve as the foundation for innovative, interdisciplinary and
research-based curricula, as well as for cutting-edge research that is responsive to diverse
community needs.
Forming the outer perimeter of our framework are arrows (see Figure 4-1) labeled professionalism,
knowledge in practice, reflection, diversity and collaboration. These arrows represent the COE’s categories
of standards related to knowledge, skills and dispositions that are addressed and assessed across programs,
and which operate in dynamic reciprocity with our four guiding principles. As candidates matriculate
through programs, they are expected to demonstrate key proficiencies associated with these standards.
These key proficiencies are expressed as COE categories of standards and were developed by COE faculty
in alignment with our guiding principles, state standards and INTASC standards. (Please see Figures 4-2
and Figures 4-3 titled COE Undergraduate Proficiencies Alignment and COE Graduate Program
Outcomes Alignment).
This conceptual framework represents a commitment to a coherent common vision, shared goals
and consistent outcomes across programs. Numerous empirical studies have shown that teacher
preparation units demonstrating this type of coherence are more effective and demonstrate a
10
greater positive impact on the conceptions and practices of teachers and other educational
professionals (Loughran, 2006; Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust & Shulman,
2005; Hammerness and Darling-Hammond, 2002; Goodlad, 1990; Zeichner and Gore, 1990).
Our framework continues to be developed with flexibility in mind, so as to give rise to
innovations that meet the particular needs of individual courses and programs as well as the
needs of faculty and students as individuals. Our guiding principles allow us to pull these
particularities together in novel and educationally meaningful ways that support individual
development and vitalize the unit as a whole (Rooney, 2010).
Knowledge Base
Guiding Principles
Our guiding principles of inquiry, interculturalism, interrelatedness and pedagogical leadership
articulate our educational aims as a coherent unit composed of administrators, faculty, students,
graduates and community partners, while also informing unit policies and practice. Further, these
principles guide the unit’s pursuit of knowledge and shape the curricular and pedagogical
practices through which we cultivate and strengthen the capacity for this pursuit among our
students, and among our students’ students. As Dewey (1916/1944) notes, “knowledge is not just
something which we are conscious of, but consists of the dispositions we consciously use in
understanding what now happens” (p. 344). In this way, our guiding principles represent a set of
dispositions or “habits of mind” (Katz, 1993) that unit administrators, faculty, students and
graduates use in order to understand complex educational contexts and processes, and that we
embody as ethical decision makers dedicated to helping all students learn and become active
participants in a democracy (Bellamy & Goodlad, 2008; Gollnick, 2008). Grounded in scholarly
and professional literature relevant to teacher education, teaching and learning, each guiding
principal is embedded in COE standard categories: professionalism, knowledge in practice,
reflection, diversity and collaboration.
Pedagogical Leadership In response to national and state standards and the wisdom of practice, our unit, along with our
colleagues in the College of Science, Mathematics and Technology and the College of Liberal
Arts, works diligently to prepare future teachers and other professionals with content knowledge,
pedagogical content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge and knowledge of learners and
their contexts. Scholarly literature indicates that highly skilled professionals poised to excel in an
intercultural world need a broad working knowledge of learners and learning, curriculum,
research and scholarship, and pedagogical expertise (Milner, 2010; LeBlanc & Gallavan, 2009;
Kennedy, Ahn, & Choi, 2008; Grant & Agosto,2008; Bransford, Darling-Hammond, & LePage,
2005; Shulman, 2005). This effort is clearly aligned with our COE standard category titled
Knowledge in Action.
However, according to Nicholaides & Yorks, “increasing the potential for learning . . . requires
that we not only transform our ways of learning but that we also transform the structures within
11
which learning occurs” (p. 51). In order to have a positive impact on all learners, contemporary
educational professionals must have the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to advocate
for all learners and act as agents of educational change (Katzenmeyer and Moler, 2009; Howard
& Alleman, 2008; Barth, 2007; Darling-Hammond & Banks et al, 2005; Hackney & Henderson,
1999; Hargreaves, 1994). Toward that end, we expect all students and faculty in each of our
programs to demonstrate pedagogical leadership as a guiding principle of their professional
practice and as a disposition by:
•
•
•
•
Knowing their content and using appropriate pedagogy to provide all students with the
opportunity to learn
Experimenting with pedagogical techniques and critically evaluating the results of their
experimentation
Transforming their own practice through continuous reflection and ongoing professional
development, and sharing this learning with others in the educational community
Advocating for all learners
Pedagogical leadership as a guiding principle and a disposition is integrated into all COE
standard categories. We agree with Westheimer (2008) that, for highly skilled professional
educators, inquiry should go beyond teachers learning their own disciplines or pedagogical
approaches. Such inquiry must also include investigating ways teachers can collaborate as
leaders in their schools and in their community who can advocate for policies, procedures and
practices that help all learners meet high expectations.
Inquiry Inquiry as an inclusive, dynamic process drives our curricular, pedagogical and scholarly
endeavors, for no dimension of our unit’s educational endeavor “could proceed apart from
inquiry that precedes, accompanies and reflects upon action” (Schubert, 1986, p. 43). Inquiry is
also a habit of mind, or disposition (Heidegger, 1977). Fostering inquiry as a disposition means
creating teaching, learning and research opportunities for educators to formulate significant
questions and to “center their attention and activity on the dynamic process of inquiry itself, not
merely on the end product of static knowledge” (Postman & Weingartner, 1969, p. 33). Toward
that end, we expect all students and faculty in each of our programs to demonstrate inquiry as a
guiding principle of their professional practice and as habit of mind by:
•
•
•
•
Actively inquiring into educational dilemmas and problems to seek resolution that benefit
students
Thinking critically about educational issues
Continuously reflecting on their practice and refining practice to meet the changing needs
of learners
Engaging in innovative scholarship that advances the field and related disciplines
12
Inquiry as a guiding principle and a disposition is integrated into all COE standard categories.
Inquiry into educational dilemmas, problems and best practices is an essential part of building
the professional capacity of teacher candidates and faculty (Rike & Sharp, 2009; Howard &
Alleman; Bransford, Darling-Hammond & LePage, 2005). Knowledge and skills related to
inquiry support the reflexive relationship between educational research and instructional practice
on the part of faculty, teacher candidates and other educational professionals (Rooney, 2010;
Hurley, Greenblatt & Cooper, 2003; Berliner, D.C., 2001).
Habits of mind related to inquiry express themselves in reflective practice that help develop the
capacity of teacher candidates and faculty to think critically about their own beliefs and
practices, and how these might influence teaching and learning in diverse contexts (Rooney,
2010; Howard & Alleman, 2008; Zeichner, 2005; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Costa & Kallick, 2000,
Schon, 1989, Dewey, 1910). Further, knowledge and skills related to reflective inquiry also
express themselves in assessment. Across initial and advanced programs, candidates learn how to
assess their own development, needs and strengths, and those of the students and/or clients who
they teach, coach and council. Candidates also learn various ways to measure and evaluate
student performance and educational progress, and use these data to modify practice in order to
facilitate the success of all students (Pompham, 2008; Stiggens, 2007; Tomlinson & McTighe,
2006; Teitel, 2001).
Interculturalism The notion of interculturalism, nested as it is within discourses of multicultural education, antiracist education, human rights education, conflict resolution and multilingual education, helps
give shape to our commitment to diversity as a practice of moving beyond passive CoExistence
toward an emergent, sustainable way of living together in multicultural societies. This is
accomplished by creating a climate of understanding, respect and dialogue within and among
diverse cultural groups (UNESCO, 2006). Toward that end, we expect all students and faculty in
each of our programs to demonstrate interculturalism as a guiding principle of their professional
practice and as a disposition by:
•
•
•
Demonstrating sensitivity toward, and appreciation of, individual and cultural differences
and having a holistic understanding of the richness of diverse communities
Understanding the importance of global connections, including biliteracy and
multilingualism as tools for intercultural teaching, learning and communication
Focusing on culturally and socially diverse contexts and the opportunities and challenges
diversity presents
Interculturalism as a guiding principle and a disposition is integrated into all COE standard
categories. Located in the southernmost tip of Texas, the UTB COE lies in extremely close
proximity to Mexico. The student body is comprised of 93% Hispanic and approximately 90%
13
receive some form of financial aid. The institution is committed to reflect diversity in its faculty
composition. Of the total fulltime faculty, 33% are Hispanic, 9% International, 6% Asian for a
total of 48%. Many of our faculty and students have deep cultural, linguistic and familial ties to
Mexico and Latin America. Likewise, the local schools in which most of our graduates work
reveal similar ties (Gonzales, 2009). Because of this local, transnational context, it is imperative
that our programs prepare pre-service teachers who can address the particular academic needs of
Hispanic and English language learners, while ensuring that all students learn. This balance is a
driving force of curricular choices aimed at fostering a critical awareness of the role that local
communities and local knowledge systems, languages and social practices play in teaching and
learning, and in the construction of identity in local and global contexts (Cormier, 2010; Rendón,
2009; Villegas & Davis, 2008; UNESCO, 2006).
Our faculty and graduate student research reveals an overarching emphasis on issues of
economic, cultural and language diversity and their impact on teaching and learning (BussertWebb, 2009; Freeman & Freeman, 2009; Shelfelbine, 2009 Conaster & Mata, 2008; Mercuri,
2008; Pan 2008; Rodriquez; 2008). Such research contributes to scholarly literature on diverse
learners. It also serves as a knowledge base for the unit’s work to prepare primarily Hispanic preservice teachers to foster the success of all students. While the percentage of teachers of color
has increased slightly over the last 10 years, it does not meet the increase in student diversity
(Chou & Sakash, 2008; Villegas & Davis, 2008; Zumwalt & Craig, 2008). The COE is
committed to cultivating highly skilled professionals who meet this need. Similarly, UTB has a
strong commitment to recruiting and retaining qualified, diverse faculty.
Interrelatedness Learning, as Soviet psychologist Vygostsky often noted, is primarily a social cultural process. According to
Vygotsky, social relations underlie all higher functions, including cognition (Van der Veer, 2007; Vygotsky,
1997). Likewise, Dewey (1938a) notes, “the true learning situation, then has longitudinal and lateral
dimensions. It is both historical and social. It is orderly and dynamic” (Dewey, 1938, XI). Similarly, recent
literature on best practices of teacher education indicates that teaching and teacher education cannot be
effectively undertaken in isolation. Instead, teacher education and teaching must be understood as a
historical, social, cultural and community-oriented enterprise that is collaborative by its very nature (Grant,
C.A. & Agosto, 2008; Gillette & Schultz, 2008; Darling-Hammond, Pacheco, Michelli, LePage,
Hammerness & Youngs, 2005; Oakes, Franke, Quartz & Rogers, 2002; Friend, 2000; Burstein,
Kretschmer, Smith & Gudoski, 1999).
Toward that end, we expect all students and faculty in each of our programs to demonstrate interrelatedness
as a guiding principle of their professional practice and as a disposition by:
•
•
•
Collaborating with other professional educators, families and communities
Becoming actively involved in professional and scholarly organizations and networks
Understanding the importance of engaging in partnerships with schools and communities
14
Engaging in interdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary activities that ensure breadth and depth
of perspective and knowledge
• Applying ethical, social behavior and professional ethical standards
Interrelatedness as a guiding principle and as a disposition is integrated into all COE standard
categories. Introductory courses in all programs emphasize knowledge, skills and dispositions
that help educators collaborate with a diversity of children, families, communities and other
professionals. Later coursework and field experiences provide multiple opportunities for
candidates to deepen these intercultural understandings and apply professional standards and
codes of ethics relative to their particular areas and grade. COE faculty and administrators
collaborate with local school districts through the Lower Rio Grande Valley P-16 Council,
Community Advisory Commitee and a variey of collaborative professional development projects
that cultivate the capacity for professional and pedagogical leadership across our region.
Technology The ability to “access, adapt, and create new knowledge using new information and
communication technology” is central to being a highly skilled educational professional who can
help all students learn (Warschauer, 2004, p. 9). We view technology as a key curricular
component that allows faculty and future teachers unparalleled opportunities for collaboration
and innovation that can used to increase student learning in cognitive, social and affective
domains (Drew, Mims, Shepherd, & Inan, 2010; Yamamoto, Kush, Lombard & Hertzog, 2010;
Harris, Mishra & Koehler, 2009: ISTE, 2008:). However, with this opportunity comes an onus to
make sure teacher education candidates and other educational professionals are prepared with the
knowledge and pedagogical skills they need to help bridge the digital divide that
disproportionally affects Hispanic students. Hispanics make up approximately 94 percent of the
student population at UTB and in the communities served by the university (Milner, 2010;
Sylvester & McGlynn, 2010; Fry & Gonzales, 2008; Warschauer, 2004). We expect all students
and faculty in each of our programs to use technology in their professional practice and as a
disposition by:
•
•
•
•
Modeling, supporting, promoting and using technology to facilitate productive
technological experiences that advance student learning, creativity and innovation
both face to face and virtually
Thinking critically about issues related to technology and their implications for
teaching, learning and equity
Engaging in professional growth and development opportunities related to
instructional technology as well as broader issues of technology and education
15
Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions
Initial preparation programs at UTB reflect program alignment with state standards, INTASC
principles and other professional standards for units and programs. Similarly, advanced programs
emphasize the demonstration of competencies derived from state and national standards guiding
each program.
Undergraduate Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions The figure below titled COE Undergraduate Proficiencies Alignment, illustrates the alignment of the COE’s
Conceptual Framework with the national standard 1 from NCATE and the state standards associated with the
Texas Examination of Educator Standards (TExES). The below figure also illustrates alignment between
proficiencies associated with the COE’s four guiding principles (inquiry, interculturalism, interrelatedness and
pedagogical leadership) and knowledge, skills and dispositions organized into six COE standard categories:
COE-1: Knowledge in Practice
COE-2: Reflection
COE-3: Collaboration
COE-4: Diversity
COE-5: Professionalism
COE-6: Technology
In Figure -2, each cell represents the intersection of COE standard categories with state and
national standards relevant to initial teacher education programs.
COE Undergraduate Proficiencies Alignment
College of Education
Candidate and
Completer
Proficiencies
Interculturalism
Teacher candidates
acknowledge through
lesson planning the
various challenges and
possibilities related to
different social
contexts.
COE Standards: 1,
4,5,6
NCATE Common Standards for
Educators
Teacher
Candidates and
Completers:
1. Candidates
demonstrate
knowledge, skills
and professional
dispositions for
effective work in
schools.
Other School
Professionals:
1. Candidates
demonstrate
knowledge, skills
and professional
dispositions for
effective work in
schools.
16
TExES
INTASC
STANDARDS
College of Education
Candidate and
Completer
Proficiencies
NCATE Common Standards for
Educators
Teacher candidates
account for individual
and cultural differences
in lesson planning and
develop awareness of
diverse communities.
COE Standards: 1, 4, 5,
6
teach students in
schools
effectively and
demonstrate their
impact on P-12
student learning.
Teacher candidates use
tools such as Biliteracy,
for intercultural
teaching and learning.
COE Standards: 1,
4,5,6
engage in
ongoing learning
that improves
practice.
TExES
know the
1, 2, 3
professional
knowledge for
their field (e.g.,
educational
leadership or
school
psychology).
work effectively
with P-12 students,
their families and
their teachers to
support learning
and demonstrate
the impact of that
support on student
learning.
know the
1, 2, 3
professional
knowledge for
their field (e.g.,
educational
leadership or
school
psychology).
INTASC
STANDARDS
Standard #1:
Standard #2:
Standard #3:
Standard #6:
Standard #7:
Standard #8:
work effectively
with P-12
students, their
families and
their teachers to
support
know subject
matter (including
pedagogical
1, 2, 3
17
Standard 2:
College of Education
Candidate and
Completer
Proficiencies
NCATE Common Standards for
Educators
TExES
INTASC
STANDARDS
1, 4
Standard #10:
4
Standard #10:
4
Standard #10:
content
knowledge) and
pedagogy.
teach students in
schools effectively
and demonstrate
their impact on P12 student learning.
Interrelatedness
Teacher candidates plan
with other professional
educators to engage
diverse families and
communities.
COE Standards: 3,5
Teacher candidates
engage in professional
and scholarly
organizations and
networks.
COE Standards: 2, 3, 5
Teacher candidates
establish partnerships
with schools and
communities.
COE Standards: 2, 3, 5
families and
their teachers to
support learning
and demonstrate
the impact of
that support on
student learning.
know the
professional
knowledge for
their field (e.g.,
educational
leadership or
school
psychology).
work effectively
with P-12
students, their
families and
their teachers to
support learning
and demonstrate
the impact of
that support on
student learning.
work effectively
with P-12
students, their
18
College of Education
Candidate and
Completer
Proficiencies
Teacher candidates
demonstrate breadth
and depth of knowledge
through
interdisciplinary/crossdisciplinary
activities/planning.
COE Standards: 1,2, 3,
4,5,6
Teacher candidates
model ethical and
professional social
behavior within
discipline specific
standards.
COE Standards: 5
Inquiry
Teacher candidates seek
out educational
dilemmas and problems
that are addressed
through inquiry.
COE Standards: 1, 2,
3,4,5,6
NCATE Common Standards for
Educators
TExES
INTASC
STANDARDS
1, 2, 3
Standard #7:
work
collaboratively
with the
community and
other school
personnel to
support student.
know subject
matter (including
pedagogical
content
knowledge) and
pedagogy.
nurture the
academic and
social
development of
all students
through
professional
dispositions such
as, fairness
and the belief
that all students
can learn.
know the
professional
knowledge for
their field (e.g.,
educational
leadership or
school
psychology).
nurture the
1, 4
academic and
social
development of
all students
through
professional
dispositions such
as caring,
fairness and the
belief that all
students can
learn.
Standard #9:
engage in
ongoing learning
that improves
practice.
engage in
4
ongoing learning
that improves
practice.
Standard #5:
Standard #9:
Standard #8:
19
College of Education
Candidate and
Completer
Proficiencies
Teacher candidates
engage in critical
thinking about
educational issues.
COE Standards: 1, 2,
3,4,5,6
Teacher candidates
demonstrate reflective
practice to meet the
needs of students.
COE Standards: 2
Teacher candidates
participate in scholarly
activities to advance the
field and related
disciplines.
COE Standards: 5
Pedagogical
Leadership
Teacher candidates
experiment with various
pedagogical techniques
and evaluate the results
of their
experimentation.
COE Standards: 1,2
Teacher candidates
evaluate their own
NCATE Common Standards for
Educators
TExES
INTASC
STANDARDS
engage in
ongoing learning
that improves
practice.
engage in
4
ongoing learning
that improves
practice.
Standard #9
nurture the
academic and
social
development of
all students
through
professional
dispositions such
as
caring, fairness
and the belief
that all students
can learn.
engage in
ongoing learning
that improves
practice.
nurture the
1, 2, 3,
academic and
4
social
development of
all students
through
professional
dispositions such
as caring,
fairness and the
belief that all
students can
learn.
engage in
4
ongoing learning
that improves
practice.
Standard #9:
know subject
matter (including
pedagogical
content
knowledge) and
pedagogy.
engage in
1, 2, 3
ongoing learning
that improves
practice.
Standard #6:
Standard #7:
Standard #8:
engage in
ongoing learning
engage in
1, 2, 3
ongoing learning
Standard #4:
Standard #5:
20
Standard #10:
College of Education
Candidate and
Completer
Proficiencies
practice through
reflective practices and
participate in ongoing
professional
development, and share
this learning with others
in the educational
community.
COE Standards:
1,2,3,4,5,6
Teacher candidates
model advocacy for all
learners.
COE Standards: 1,
2,3,4,5,6
NCATE Common Standards for
Educators
that improves
practice.
that improves
practice.
work
collaboratively
with the
community and
other school
personnel to
support student
learning.
nurture academic
and social
development of
all students
through
professional
dispositions such
as
caring, fairness
and the belief
that all students
can learn.
use technology
effectively in
their job role to
support student
learning.
work effectively
with P-12
students, their
families and
their teachers to
support learning
and demonstrate
the impact of
that support on
student learning.
TExES
INTASC
STANDARDS
Standard #6:
Standard #7:
Standard #8:
2, 4
Standard #9:
Graduate Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions The COE’s graduate program competencies and dispositions, termed “standards,” in this document, are
presented below in Figure 3, COE Graduate Program Outcomes Alignment. This figure presents an
alignment of the COE’s six Categories of Standards with the standards for each graduate program area.
Appendix 1 lists each program’s standards.
To assist in interpreting the table, abbreviations for each program (with the number of the standard aligned
with the College of Education’s Conceptual Framework Standards) can be found beneath each column and
cell within the column. For example, under the column labeled Curriculum and Instruction, the first cell is
an intersection of the broad category Interrelatedness and its first standard, “Account for individual and
cultural differences in lesson planning and curriculum development, and develop awareness of diverse
communities,” and the COE Categories of Standards 1, 4, 5, and 6 with Curriculum and Instruction (CI)
standards 2 and 3.
21
Figure 3
COE Advanced Program Outcomes Alignment
Interculturalism
Account for individual and
cultural differences in curriculum
development, research and
professional practice, and develop
awareness of diverse
communities.
COE Standards: 1, 4, 5, 6
Use tools such as biliteracy, for
intercultural research, teaching and
learning and other professional
practice
COE Standards: 1, 4,5,6
Acknowledge through research,
curriculum planning and other
professional practice the various
challenges and possibilities related
to different social contexts.
COE Standards: 1, 4,5,6
Interrelatedness
Plan and conduct research with
other professional educators to
engage diverse families and
communities.
COE Standards: 3,5
Engage in professional and
scholarly organizations and
networks.
COE Standards: 2, 3, 5
Establish partnerships with
schools and communities.
COE Standards: 2, 3, 5
Master’s Degree Programs Outcomes
Curriculu C&I
Counselin Educatio
m and
Ed.
g
nal
Instructio Tech.
And
Leadersh
n
Guidance ip
CI2, 3
ET2, 3
CG2, 3
EL2.1,
2.2, 2.4
Early
Child
hood
Bilin Readi
gual ng
Ed.
Specia
list
EC1, 4 BE1 RS2, 3
Spec
ial
Ed.
SE2,
3
CI2, 3
ET2,3
CG2, 3
EL2.1,
2.2, 2.4
EC1, 4 BE1
RS2, 3
SE1,
3
CI3, 4
ET1, 2
CG2
EL2, 3
EC1, 4 BE1
RS2, 3
SE1,
2, 3
CI2, 3
ET1, 2,
3
CG1, 2, 3
EL1.1,
1.2,
EC1,
4, 5
RS2, 3
SE5
CI1
ET3, 4
CG1
EL1.1
1.2, 1.3,
2.3,
EC5
BE3, RS2, 3
4
SE2,
6
CI2, 4
ET5
CG1, 2, 5
EL1.2,
3.1,
EC2
BE1
SE5
22
RS2, 3
Demonstrate breadth and depth of
knowledge through
interdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary
activities/planning.
COE Standards: 1,2, 3, 4,5,6
Model ethical and professional
social behavior within discipline
specific standards.
COE Standards: 5
Inquiry
Seek out educational dilemmas
and problems that are addressed
through inquiry.
COE Standards: 1, 2, 3,4,5,6
Engage in critical thinking about
educational issues.
COE Standards: 1, 2, 3,4,5,6
Demonstrate reflective practice to
meet the needs of students.
COE Standards: 2
Participate in scholarly activities to
advance the field and related
disciplines.
COE Standards: 5
Pedagogical Leadership
Demonstrate their content
knowledge and use appropriate
pedagogical strategies to provide
all students an opportunity to
learn.
COE Standards: 1, 2
Experiment with various
pedagogical techniques and
evaluate the results of their
experimentation.
COE Standards: 1,2
Evaluate their own practice
through reflective practices and
participate in ongoing professional
development, and share this
CI2, 3
ET1, 2
CG1, 2, 3
EL1, 2, 3
EC1, 4 BE1, RS2, 3
2
SE1,
2, 3
CI2
ET5
CG9
EL1.3
EC5
SE2,
6
CI1
ET4, 5
CG1, 8
EL2.1,
2.4
EC3, 5 BE
3, 4
CI1, 4
ET1
CG7, 8
EL2.4
EC5
CI2,4
ET1, 2,
3, 4, 5
CG7, 8
CI1
ET4, 5
CI2, 3
RS1,
SE2,
4
BE3, RS1
4
SE2,
4
EL2.4
EC3, 4 BE1, RS2
2
SE3
CG1, 8
EL2.3
EC5
BE3, RS1
4
SE4,
6
ET1, 2,
3
CG3, 4, 5,
6
EL2
EC1,
2, 3, 4
BE1, RS2, 3
2
SE1,
2, 3
CI2, 3
ET1, 2,
3
CG3, 4, 5,
6,7
EL2
EC3, 4 BE1, RS2, 3
2
SE1,
3
CI2, 3
ET1, 2,
3
CG1, 8
EL2.3,
2.4
EC4
SE3,
4
23
BE3, RS2, 3
4
learning with others in the
educational community.
COE Standards: 1,2,3,4,5,6
Model Advocacy for all learners
through research, teaching and
professional practice
CI2, 4
ET1, 2,
3
CG1, 10
EL1, 2, 3
EC4, 5 BE1
RS2
Unit Assessment System Summary Central to our commitment to the ongoing process of continuous improvement is our unit
assessment system through which data are regularly compiled aggregated, summarized, analyzed
and then shared with stakeholders. The figure below provides a summary of our unit’s
continuous improvement process thru which we assess, evaluate and improve programs, unit
operations as well as the unit assessment system itself.
As this figure along with the below discussion of transition points illustrates comprehensive data
on candidate performance, program quality and unit operations is gathered multiple times in
multiple ways at each stage of our programs. Assessments at each level share a common focus
24
SE2,
6
on cultivating highly skilled educational professionals based on professional, state and
institutional standards as guided by our conceptual framework.
Transition Points Our assessment structure requires initial and advanced candidates demonstrate key proficiencies
on multiple assessments at multiple junctures in all programs and scored by program faculty,
clinical faculty, and school partners. As a part of the continuous improvement process, data are
compiled and stored through Tk20 shared and analyzed with relevant stakeholders and then used
to make program innovations that prepare better teachers, leaders and other educational
professionals. Key unit Assessments at the initial level are as follows:
Transition Point 1
Admission to Teacher
Education
Transition Point 2
Required Teacher
Preparation
Coursework
Declared major
Completion of 60 hours
EDCI 3330
EDCI 3314
EDCI 4327
EDCI 4328
EPSY4322
Completion of :
EDCI 1301
EDFR 2301
Transition Point 3
Admission to Student
Teaching
Completion of
prerequisites and field
exp. hrs.
Passing score on TExES
Content and PPR
Exams
Proficient Professional
Dispositional
Assessments
Writing Skills Test
Cumulative GPA of 2.5
Major GPA of 2.5
No grade lower than a C
in Content or Education
courses
Professional Disposition
Survey Assessment (4)
Completion of
Abbreviated TWS
Cumulative GPA of 2.5
No grade lower than a C
in Teacher Preparation
Transition Point 4
Graduation and
Recommendation for
Certification
Successful Student
Teaching Evaluations
(6)
Successful Completion
of TWS
Proficient Exit
Professional
Disposition
Assessment
Completion of
Student Teaching
Hours
Competent Student
Teaching Evaluations
Passing Score on TWS
Recognition of
Professional Disposition
Form
State Exit Survey
State Principle Survey
Employer Surveys
25
Assessments in teacher education course-work require candidates to demonstrate content
knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge and skills , knowledge and skills related to contentspecific pedagogy, and professional dispositions, all aligned with our conceptual framework.
Upper level field experiences assess students’ capacity to put this into practice in actual
classrooms, and thru the Abbreviated Teacher Work Sample measure and reflect upon their
impact on student learning. In order to ensure that candidates are prepared to have a positive
impact on student learning during student teaching, candidates are required to pass TExES
Content and PPR Exams and demonstrate proficiency in each professional disposition assessed
by the unit faculty teachers through the Professional Disposition Survey.
During student teaching, candidates demonstrate their ability to apply content knowledge and
pedagogical knowledge to positively influence student learning thru 6 student teacher
evaluations modeled after the Texas Professional Development and Appraisal System (PDAS)
conducted by field supervisors and cooperating teachers. The full TWS completed during student
teaching provides a valid and reliable measure of candidate proficiency in all of the preceding
areas as well as candidate’s impact on student learning. In order to monitor the effectiveness of
our program and our graduates, the unit draws from the Candidate Exit Survey and Principal
Survey administered thru ASEP as well as other follow-up studies.
Key unit assessments at the advanced level are as follows:
Transition Point 1
Admission to
Advanced Program
Ed.D:
Grad GPA: 3.25
GRE within last 5 years
Masters:
GPA 3.0
Recognition of
Professional
Disposition
Form
Transition Point 2
Program Courses in
Core
Masters:
EDFR 6300
EDFR 6388/COUN 6364
EPSY 6304
Transition Point 3
Comp Exam and/or
Transition into
Internship
Proficient Level
Professional
Disposition Assessment
EDFR 8330
EDFR 8322
EPSY 8318
Program Specific
Internship Requirement
Professional Disposition
Survey(4)
Ed.D.: Pass
Comprehensive Exam
Transition Point 4
Graduation
Meet all degree
requirements
Ed.D: Successfully
defend dissertation
Masters: Pass
Comprehensive Exam
Employer Surveys
Completer Surveys
*Additional
Requirements vary by
program.
26
Key unit assessments at the advanced level require candidates demonstrate an in-depth
understanding of knowledge in their fields as delineated in professional, state, and institutional
standards. Additionally, all advanced candidates are required to demonstrate their belief that all
students can learn and a commitment to fairness as well as other dispositions aligned with
relevant professional standards thru the Professional Disposition Survey administered at multiple
junctures throughout programs by multiple faculty members. Assessments conducted in common
core courses devoted to diversity, student learning and cognition, and research that are required
of all master’s and doctoral level candidates measure candidates capacity to analyze data related
to their work, reflect on practice, and use research and technology to support and improve
student learning and other professional outcomes as aligned with state and professional standards
and guided by the COE conceptual framework. Comprehensive exams at the master’s and
doctoral level require students to demonstrate these proficiencies as well as program-specific
content through prompts that demand critical analysis and synthesis. Assessments related to
advanced field and clincal placements link with exhibit 1.3.c measure candidates’ ability to apply
these proficiencies in relevant professional settings as well as measuring candidates’ ability to
bring research to bear on such work. The Doctoral Dissertation Assessment requires students
demonstrate a breadth of knowledge concerning the field of Curriculum & Instruction, in depth
knowledge of their specialization area and proficiencies related to conducting original research
aimed at educational improvement and/or innovation. Completer exit surveys as well as
employer surveys are also conducted.
Additionally, all initial programs and advanced programs for which SPA standards exist conduct
additional assessments aligned with relevant SPA standards. Data from unit and program
assessments are regularly and systematically compiled, aggregated, summarized, analyzed, and
shared publicly on our website, through our advisory groups, and semesterly data summits and
then used to make improvements in candidate performance, program quality, and unit operations.
Our multi-tiered assessment committee structure reviews and refines unit assessments to
establish the fairness, accuracy, and consistency and combat bias.
Our current assessment system operates across three interrelated levels, assessment of
candidates, assessment of programs, and unit operations assessment. In accordance with the
policies, procedures, and schedule described in our Assessment Handbook, these data are
regularly and systematically compiled, aggregated, summarized, analyzed, and shared with the
public with the aim of boosting candidate performance, and improving program quality and unit
operations.
Candidate Performance Data Toward those ends, our the unit regularly compiles, aggregates, summarizes, and analyses data
concerning candidate progress—relative to institutional, state, and professional standards—
through a variety of key unit assessments measuring candidate proficiencies aligned with our
conceptual framework, and state and professional standards. Our assessment system also
consists of course level assessments such as work samples, micro-teaching, research papers, case
27
study analyses, performance-based projects, examinations and reflective writing used to assess
candidate progress between transition points and beyond key assessments. This is reflected in
professional education syllabi which show the ways in which each professional education course
and its assessments aligns with our conceptual framework as well as relevant professional
standards. Candidate performance data are collected, stored, and summarized primarily through
Tk20. This data management system also integrates data such as enrollment and GPA from
institutional databases such as DATATEL and course related data Blackboard Outcomes. Tk20
is coordinated by the COE Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Development (OIED) which
oversees the collection, compilation, aggregation and disaggregation of unit and program
assessment data, maintains Continuous Improvement Assessment Schedule and works with the
Office of Teacher Preparation and Accountability to facilitate state reporting (such as Title II
reports) regarding candidate performance. Aggregated and disaggregated data from our
assessment system is shared with COE faculty and relevant faculty from the College of Liberal
Arts and the College of College of Liberal Arts and the College of Science, Mathematics and
Technology at Data Summits held at the beginning of fall and spring semesters. Data is shared
with our school partners and our broader community through the Teacher Education Council
(TEC), Lower Rio Grande Valley Teacher Education Advisory Council, student and community
advisory councils and our website Each of these groups are designed to provide academic and
administrative units feedback on academic programs, activities, and other key issues related to
the COE.
Program Data Program level data is regularly compiled, summarized, aggregated analyzed and used to make
program modifications through the process of external (SPA) and internal program review, as
well as state review where relevant. Our unit offers 19 initial programs which lead to teacher
certification. Of these 19 programs, 4 are nationally accredited by NASM and 13 are recognized
with conditions (RWC) by their Specialized Professional Organizations (SPAs). All 19 of these
programs are resubmitting (where applicable) for full recognition. We also offer one Post
Baccalaureate degree option. Our unit offers 15 active specializations at the master’s level. The
Community Counseling and School Counseling programs are nationally accredited by
CACREP.
At the advanced level, three of our advanced programs are nationally recognized by their SPAs.
The Master of Educational Technology Program is fully recognized by AECT. The Master of
Education-Educational Leadership at both the, district and building levels are fully recognized
by ELCC. Our 3 master level specializations in Special Education are recognized with
conditions by CEC. The Masters Bilingual Education program, Master’s C & I program and
Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction do not have SPA standards. However, these programs
adhere to the same schedule of rigorous program review aligned with relevant standards and
follow the same policies and practices for ensuring that data is consistently compiled analyzed,
shared and used to improve programs across our unit.
28
Program assessments are coordinated by program faculty, the Office of Teacher Certification
and Accountability, department chairs, program coordinators (at the advanced level) with the
assistance of departmental assessment committees, and the COE assessment committee. Data
are compiled, aggregated and summarized in Tk20 reports and analyzed by program faculty at
semesterly data summits and additional program meetings devoted to data-driven program
improvement. Please see Exhibit 2.3.d for the draft of our Assessment Handbook that and
provides a program assessment matrix and details the policies, procedures, practices, and
schedules for ensuring that data are regularly collected, compiled, aggregated, summarized,
analyzed, and used for continuous improvement.
Unit Operation Data
The COE Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Development and the Office of the Dean work
together to coordinates data collection related to unit operations. Together they collect, organize,
maintain, and analyze institutional and other data used to support college strategic planning,
decision-making, management and institutional evaluation. Data gathered toward this end
include: regional accreditation data, national rankings, demographic trend analysis; entrance and
exit data, general retention data, credit hour production data; external fund reports, resource
allocation data, annual faculty review, dean evaluation, department chair evaluation, faculty
workload, and program improvement plans. The unit then uses this assessment data to make
improvements in mission-critical areas—especially teaching and learning— but also for critical
areas of institutional improvement, faculty enhancement, accreditation and accountability. When
appropriate, summarized unit data are shared with faculty at semersterly data summits and with
faculty and staff, students, and P-12 partners through student, professional, and community
advisory committees and on our website.
A Culture of Assessment Faculty plays a central role in tending to the unit’s assessment system and fostering our unit’s
emerging culture of assessment. In addition to designing, refining, and conducting many of the
assessments upon which the unit assessment system relies, faculty provide leadership in terms of
policy, procedures and practices that guide unit assessment and in the data-driven decisions that
result. The unit has established three faculty led assessment committees. The Unit Assessment
Committee (established in fall 2013) meets twice a semester and is composed of faculty representatives
from the COE, The College of Liberal Arts and the College of Science, Mathematics and Technology. It
is responsible for overseeing, coordinating and evaluating unit level assessment policies and procedures.
The COE assessment committee is led by and composed of COE faculty (who also serve as departmental
assessment committee chairs) and relevant resource people (such as the Director of Field Experience).
This committee meets at least twice monthly to review and analyze unit, program and candidate
assessments and to strategize ways to improve COE assessment practices. It also plays a pivotal role in
planning semesterly data summits devoted to sharing and further analyzing data from unit and program
assessments and brainstorming program changes in response to those data. The four departmental
29
assessment committees meet as needed to monitor data collection and provide ongoing technical
assistance regarding assessment to faculty in their relevant departments.
Unit Assessment Commi,ee Coordinates and Evaluates Policies & Prac3ces OIED Data Manages Tk20 Monitors Data Collec3on Generates Reports Unit Program Candidate Faculty COE Assessment Commi,ee Reviews, Analyzes, Monitors Quality & Advises Department Assessment Commi,ees Monitors Collec3on & Technical Assistance These committees work with faculty and the professional community to regularly evaluate the
capacity and effectiveness of the assessment system. Additionally, each assessment committees
along with the COE Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Development plays a pivotal role and
monitoring the quality of assessments in terms of fairness, accuracy, consistency and bias. The unit
assessment committee is in charge of regularly reviewing assessment policies and practices for
fairness, accuracy and bias and the impact of our unit assessments on our diverse pool of teacher,
leader and other educational profession candidates. This includes reviewing procedures
procedures and practices for managing student complaints.
The COE assessment committee provides ongoing examination and feedback regarding the
accuracy of rubrics and fairness of raters, along with the data generated through these
instruments and evaluations. When program areas modify assessments, the modifications are
presented to the COE Assessment Committee. The committee reviews proposed change and
offer recommendations for further study or for additional modification that might improve
fairness and accuracy and, eliminate bias as well as evaluating instruments in terms of their
accuracy, validity and utility.
Departmental Assessment Committees help ensure faculty members in key areas and with key
assessments are trained in the construction and use of related rubrics. Beyond these committees,
it is a growing college-wide expectation that program faculty meet regularly to discuss key
30
assessments, evaluate that work, and develop and eventually conduct research about the fairness,
validity and reliability of program assessments.
Much of our work to ensure fairness and reduce bias is done thru building a culture of
assessment that meets student as well as program and unit needs and is guided by American Association of Higher Education sponsored publication Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning (1991). Toward that end, the unit works to make course
expectations clear thru syllabi that state outcomes and include rubrics that measure them.
Students are introduced to program expectations and our unit dispositions upon entrance into
their program and assessed multiple times by a multiplicity of raters over time. Such unit
expectations and the processes for academic and non-academic appeals are available in the COE Student
Handbook, Teacher Candidate Handbook, Counseling Handbook and the Doctoral Handbook.
Additionally the COE has greivance procedures specific to teacher education and for dispositional
concerns/ link to 2.3.e
Conceptual Framework Summary In keeping with our institution’s commitment to respond to the needs of the transnational
community it serves, the COE is committed to preparing teachers, school administrators,
counselors and allied health and sports professionals to help all students learn in an intercultural
world. Our conceptual framework—based on the four interrelated guiding principles, inquiry,
interculturalism, interrelatedness and pedagogical leadership—is supported by professional and
scholarly literature and is aligned with state, professional and national standards. Candidates
completing the program and unit faculty continue to demonstrate knowledge, skills and
dispositions that reflect these guiding principles and COE categories of standards—
professionalism, knowledge in practice, diversity, reflection and collaboration Our commitment
to technology as an instructional mode and as a contemporary, fundamental literacy is
interwoven throughout the guiding principles and COE categories of standards. Consistent
assessment regarding unit operations, programs, candidates, faculty and administrators help us
measure our progress toward unit goals in relation to relevant, external standards. This
conceptual framework represents our unit’s commitment to the common aim of cultivating
highly skilled educational professionals prepared to help all students learn in an intercultural
world.
31
Works Cited
Aristotle. (2002). Nicomachean Ethics. (L. Sachs, Trans.). J. Newburyport, MA: Focus/ R.
Pullins Publishing.
Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R.,
Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (Eds.). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Barth, R. (2007). The teacher leader. In R.H. Ackerman & S.V. MacKenzie (Eds.). Awakening
the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin,
pp. 9-36.
Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L. & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond
& J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should
learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1-39.
Bellamy G. T. & Goodlad, J.I. (2008). Continuity and change in the pursuit of a democratic
public mission for out schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 89 (8), 565-571.
Berliner, D.C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal
of Educational Research, 35, 463-483.
Burstein, N., Kretschmer, D., Smith, C., & Gudoski, P. (1999). Redesigning teacher education as
a shared responsibility of schools and universities. Journal of Teacher Education 55, 611.
Bussert-Webb, K. (2009).¿Qué hago? Latino/a children describe their activities in an
“exemplary” school. Journal of Latinos and Education, 8, 38-54.
Cain, M.S. (2001). Ten qualities of the renewed teacher. Phi Delta Kappan. 82(9), 702-705.
Calderhead, J. & Shorrock, S.B. (1997). Understanding teacher education: Case studies in the
professional development of beginning teachers. London: Falmer Press.
Chou, V. & Sakash, K. (2008). Troubling diversity: In M. Cochran-Smith & S. Feiman-Nemser
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions and changing
contexts. New York: Routledge, pp.686-705.
College of Education, The University of Texas at Brownsville. (2011). Mission. Retrieved from
http://www.utb.edu/vpaa/CoE/Pages/Mission.aspx.
Conatser, P. & Mata, Z. (2008). Mexican folkloric dance: Bailamos. PELINKS4U Promoting
Active & Healthy Lifestyles, section: Adapted Physical Education 10(9).
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs.
San Francisco, CA: Joley-Bass.
Cormier, D. (2010). Community as curriculum. In D.
Araya & M.A. Peters (Eds.), Education in the creative economy: Knowledge and
learning in the age of innovation. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 511-524.
Costa, A.L., & Kallick, B. (2000). Getting into the habit of reflection. Educational Leadership,
57(7), 60-62.
Darling-Hammond, L. Banks, J., Zumwalt, K., Gomez, L., Shrein, M.G., Giesdorn, J., & Finn, L.
(2005). Educational goals and purposes: Developing a curricular vision for teaching. In
L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world:
32
What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons,
pp. 169-200.
Darling-Hammond, L., Pacheco, A., Michelli, N., LePage, P., Hammerness, K., & Youngs, P.
(2005). Implementing curriculum renewal in teacher education: Managing organizational
and policy change. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers
for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA:
John Wiley & Sons, pp. 442-479.
Dewey, J. (1910). What is thought? Chapter 1: In How we think (pp. 1-13). Lexington, MA: DC
Heath.
Dewey, J. (1916/1944). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of
education. New York. The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1938a). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938b). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Holt.
Drew, P., Mims, C., Shepherd, C.E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming
teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3)
grants. Teaching and teacher education 26 (4), 863-870.
Doll, W.E. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Erickson, E.H. (1964). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.
Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2009). Academic Language for English Language Learners and
Struggling Readers: How to Help Students Succeed Across Content Areas. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Friend, M, & Cook, L. (2000). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals(2nd
ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.
Fry, R. & Gonzales, F. (2008). One-in-Five and Growing Fast: A Profile of Hispanic Public
School Students. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Gadamer, H.G. (2004). Truth and Method. New York: Continuum.
Gallavan, N.P. & LeBlanc, P.R. (2009). Teachers’ practice and professionalism. In LeBlanc &
N.P. Gallavan (Eds.), Affective teacher education: Exploring connections among
knowledge, skills, & dispositions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 79-80.
Gándara, P. & Contreras, F. (2010. The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed
social policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gildersleeve, (2010). Fracturing opportunity: Mexican migrant students and college going
literacy. New York: Peter Lang.
Gillette, M.D. & Schultz, B. D. (2008). Do you see what I see? Teacher capacity as vision for
education in a democracy. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. Feiman-Nemser (Eds.), Handbook
of research on teacher education: Enduring questions and changing contexts. New York:
Routledge, pp.231-237.
33
Glickman, C. (2002). Leadership for learning. How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Gollnick, D.M. (2008). Teacher capacity for diversity. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. FeimanNemser (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions and
changing contexts. New York: Routledge, pp. 249-257.
González, J.R. (2009). Existentialism at home, determinism abroad: A small-town MexicanAmerican kid goes global. Harvard Educational Review, 79 (4), 586-593.
Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gorard, S. & Selwyn, N. (2005). What makes a lifelong learner? Teachers College Record, 107,
1193-1216.
Grant, C.A., & Agosto, V. (2008). Teacher capacity and social justice in teacher education. In M.
Cochran-Smith & S. Feiman-Nemser (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher
education: Enduring questions and changing contexts. New York: Routledge, pp. 175200.
Greene, M. (1988). The Dialectic of Freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Greene, M. (1967). Existential encounters for teachers. New York: Random House.
Grossman, P., Schoenfeld, A., & Lee, C. (2005). Teaching subject matter. In L. DarlingHammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, pp.
201-231.
Hackney, C.E. & Henderson, J.C. (1999). Educating school leaders for inquiry-based
democratic learning communities. Educational Horizons 77(2), 67-73.
Hammerness, K. & Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Meeting old challenges
and new demands: The redesign of the Stanford Teacher Education Program. Issues in Teacher
Education, 11(1), 17-30.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing
Times: Teachers’ Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration
reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41 (4), 393–416.
Hearn, G. & Bridgstock, R. (2010). Education for the creative economy: Innovation,
transdisciplinarity and networks. In D. Araya & M.A. Peters (Eds.), Education in the
creative economy: Knowledge and learning in the age of innovation. New York: Peter
Lang, pp. 93-115. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other
essays. New York: Harper & Row.hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of
hope. New York: Routledge.
Howard T.C. & Aleman, G.R. (2008). Teacher capacity for diverse learners. What teachers need
to know? In M. Cochran-Smith & S. Feiman-Nemser (Eds.), Handbook of research on
teacher education: Enduring questions and changing contexts. New York: Routledge, pp.
157-174.
34
Hurley, v., Greenblatt, R.B., & Cooper, B.S. (2003). Learning conversations: Transforming
supervision (Electronic Version). Principal Leadership, 3 (9), 31.
International Society for Technology Education (ISTE) (2008). National Educational
Technology Standards for Teachers, Second Edition. Eugene, OR: ISTE.
Jay, J.K., & Johnson, K.L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A topology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73-85.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (2009). The importance of social & emotional learning. P.R.
LeBlanc & N.P. Gallavan (2009). Affective teacher education: Exploring connections
among knowledge, skills, & dispositions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp.1-26.
Katz, l. (1993).Dispositions: Definitions and implications for early childhood practice.
Champagne, IL: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 360104).
Katzenmeyer, M.H. & Moler, G.V. (2009) Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers
develop as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Kennedy, M., Ahn, S., & Choi, J. (2010). The value added by teacher education. In M. CochranSmith & S. Feiman-Nemser (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education:
Enduring questions and changing contexts. New York: Routledge, pp. 1247-1271.
Kessels, J. & Korthagan, F.A.J. (2001). The relation between theory and practice: Back to the
classics. In F.A. J. Korthagen, J. Kessels, B. Koster, B. Langerwarf, and T. Wubbels
(Eds.), Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 20-31.
Kessler, C.L. (2007). A teacher of teachers. In T. Russel & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a
pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices. New York:
Routledge, pp. 124-137.
P.R. LeBlanc & N.P. Gallavan (2009). Affective teacher education: Exploring connections
among knowledge, skills, & dispositions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lin, X. & Kinzer, C. (2003). The importance of technology for making cultural values visible.
Theory into Practice, 42, 234-242.
Liu, G. (1995). Knowledge, Foundations, and Discourse: Philosophical Support for ServiceLearning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Fall 5-18.
Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and
learning about teaching. New York: Routledge.
Lucas, T. & Grinberg, J. (2008). Responding to the linguistic reality of mainstream classrooms:
Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners. In M. Cochran-Smith & S.
Feiman-Nemser (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions
and changing contexts. New York: Routledge, pp. 606-635.
Mercuri, S. (2008). “Una mirada crítica a los programas de doble inmersión”. The Colombian
Journal of Bilingual Education: GIST, 2, 85-101.
Milner, H.R. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching: Implications for
diversity studies? Journal of Teacher Education 61(1-2), 118-131.
Nicolaides, A. & Yorks, L. (2008). An epistemology of learning through. ECO 10(1), 50-61.
35
Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oakes, J., Franke, M.L.., Quartz, K.H., &Rogers, J. (2002). Research for high quality urban
teaching: Defining it, developing it, assessing it. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 228234.
Padilla, R.V. (2004/2010). High-stakes testing and accountability as social constructs across
cultures. In F.W. Parkay, G. Hass, & E.J. Anctil (Eds.), Curriculum leadership:
Readings for developing quality educational programs (pp. 72-80).
Pan, C. (2008). A year-long investigation of self-efficacy for technology integration and
behavior pattern in a pre-service technology course using Hispanic student population.
International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 33-44.
Pinar, W.F. (2007). Intellectual advancement through disciplinarity: Verticality & horizontality
in curriculum studies. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.
Popham, W.J. (2008). Transformative Assessment. Alexandria,
VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Postman, N. & Weingartner, C. (1969), Teaching as a Subversive Activity. New York: Dell.
Rendón, L.I. (2009). Sentipendante (sensing/thinking) pedagogy: Educating for wholeness,
social justice, and liberation. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Rike, C.J. & Sharp, K. (2009). Developing and assessing teacher candidates’ dispositions: A
beneficial process for all. In P.R. LeBlanc & N.P. Gallavan (2009). Affective teacher
education: Exploring connections among knowledge, skills, & dispositions. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 61-78.
Robertson, E. (2008). Teacher education in a democratic society: Learning and teaching the
practices of democratic participation. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. Feiman-Nemser (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions and changing contexts.
New York: Routledge, pp. 27-43.
Robinson, K. (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. London: National
Advisory Committee on Creativity and Cultural Education.
Rodriguez, A. D. (2008). The role of Spanish in bilingual and ESL teacher education programs:
Experiences and perceptions of prospective teachers. Southwestern Teacher Education
Journal, 1(1), 85-93.
Rooney, D. (2010). Creatively wise education in a knowledge economy. In D. Araya & M.A.
Peters (Eds.), Education in the creative economy: Knowledge and learning in the age of
innovation. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 179-199.
Rose, M. (2009). Why school? Reclaiming education for the rest of us. New York: The New
Press.
Rotella, C. (2010 September, 19). Anytime, anywhere: Online learning is breaking down school
walls.
The
New
York
Times
Magazine.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/magazine/19Essays-online-t.html?ref=magazine
Shefelbine, J. (2009). Leadership for successful learners of English as a second language. Texas
Study of Secondary Education, Texas Association of Secondary School Principals.
36
Schubert, W.H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York:
Macmillan.
Shulman, L. (2005). A speech delivered at the Math Science Partnerships (MSP) Workshop:
“Teacher Education for Effective Teaching and Learning” Hosted by the National
Research Council’s Center for Education. February 6-8, 2005, Irvine, California.
Schon, D.A. (1989). Educating reflective practitioners: New designs for teaching and learning.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Stiggins, R.J. (2007). Assessment for learning: A key to student motivation and learning. Phi
Delta Kappa EDGE, 2(2), 19-24.
Swick, K.J. (2001). Service-learning in teacher education: Building learning
communities.Clearing House, 74(5), 261-264.
Sylvester, D.E. &McGlynn, A.J. (2010). The digital divide: Political participation and place.
Social Science Computer Review, 1 (28), 64-74.
Thomlinson, C. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding
by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Teitel, L. (2001). An assessment framework for professional development schools: Going
beyond the leap of faith. Journal of Teacher Education 52(1), 57-69.
UNESCO Section of Education for Peace and Human Rights, Division for the Promotion of
Quality Education, Education Sector. (2006). UNESCO guidelines on intercultural
education. Paris: UNESCO.
The University of Texas at Brownsville. (2012 a). Strategic Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.utb.edu/Pages/StrategicPlan.aspx
The University of Texas at Brownsville. (2012 b). Mission Statement. Retrieved from
http://www.utb.edu/Pages/MissionandPhilosophy.aspx
Van der Veer, R. (2007). Lev Vygotsky. London: Continuum International Publishing
Group.
van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching. 1991. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Villegas A.M. & Davis, D. (2008). Preparing teachers of color to confront racial/ethnic
disparities in educational outcomes. Teacher capacity for diverse learners. What teachers
need to know? In M. Cochran-Smith & S. Feiman-Nemser (Eds.), Handbook of research
on teacher education: Enduring questions and changing contexts. New York: Routledge,
pp. 563-605.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1997).The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol. 3. R.W. Rieber & J. Wollock
(Eds.). New York: Plenum Press.
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Westheimer, J. (2008). Learning among colleagues: Teacher community and the shared
enterprise of education, In M. Cochran-Smith & S. Feiman-Nemser (Eds.), Handbook of
37
research on teacher education: Enduring questions and changing contexts. New York:
Routledge, pp. 563-605.
Whitehead, A.N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays. New York: Free Press, pp.
756-783.
Yamamoto, J., Kush, J.C., Lombard, R., & Hertzog. (2010). Technology integration and
Reflective models. Hershey, PA: IGA Global.
Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford
(Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able
to do. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 358-389.
Zeichner, K.M. & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W.R. Houston, M. Haberman, J.P.
Sikula, and Association of Teacher Educators (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher
education. New York: MacMillan, pp. 329-348.
38
APPENDIX
40
Appendix 4-­‐1 Advanced Program Outcomes
Bilingual Education
Standard 1-Language Acquisition Theory-Students will demonstrate an understanding
of first and second language acquisition theory and research by stating its implications
for teaching and learning in written form.
Standard 2- Written Communication-Students will demonstrate proficiency when
writing academic Spanish and English as measured by the program rubric.
Standard 3-Research-Students will read and interpret academic literature in the field of
bilingual education.
Standard 4-Program Evaluation-Students will evaluate bilingual program models using
current research as criteria.
Counseling and Guidance
Standard 1-Professional Functioning and Roles-An understanding of all aspects of professional
functioning.
Standard 2-Social and Cultural Diversity-An understanding of the cultural context of
relationships, issues, and trends in a multicultural diverse society related to such factors as
culture, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, sexual orientation, mental and physical
characteristics, education, family values, religious and spiritual values, socioeconomic status and
unique characteristics of individuals, couples, families, ethnic groups and communities.
Standard 3- Human Growth and Development- An understanding of the nature and needs of
individuals at all developmental levels.
Standard 4-Career Development-An understanding of career development and related life
factors.
Standard 5-Helping Relationships-An understanding counseling and consultation processes.
Standard 6-Group Work-Theoretical and experimental understandings of group purpose,
development, dynamics, counseling, theories, group counseling methods and skills, and other
group approaches.
41
Standard 7-Assessment-An understanding of individual and group approaches to assessment and
evaluation.
Standard 8-Research and Program Evaluation-An understanding of research methods, statistical
analysis, needs assessment, and program evaluation.
Standard 9-Ethical and Legal Issues-An understanding of the American Counseling Association
(ACA) Code of Ethics, Texas State Board of Examiners of Licensed Professional counselors
(LPC) Code of Ethics, American School Counselor Association (ASCA) Ethical Standards, and
other counseling related codes of ethics.
Curriculum and Instruction
Standard 1-Interpret and critique reports/articles of empirical research in education.
Standard 2-Explain how culture affects teacher-student expectations and interactions, especially
with regard to ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ability and language.
Standard 3-Integrate learning principles and theories into classroom curriculum and instructional
design and practice.
Standard 4-Analyze curricular programs designed to address the needs of all learners, including
second language learners, culturally diverse and migrant students, special education, gifted and
talented, at-risk students and students with reading difficulties.
Early Childhood
Standard 1-Promoting Child Development and Learning. Young children’s’ characteristics and
needs. Multiple influences on development and learning. Using developmental knowledge to
create learning environments.
Standard 2-Building family and community relationships. Family and community characteristics.
Supportive family relationships. Involving families in child development.
Standard 3-Observing, documenting and assessing support young children and families.
Assessment goals, benefits and uses. Using appropriate assessments. Practicing responsible
assessment. Assessment partnerships.
Standard 4 Teaching and learning. Connecting with children and families. Using
developmentally effective approaches. Content knowledge. Building meaningful curriculum.
Standard 5 Becoming a professional. Professional EC involvement. Ethical standards.
Continuous learning. Integrating multiple perspectives. Engaging in advocacy.
Educational Leadership
Standard 1-School Community Leadership
42
1.1 Educational leaders know how to shape campus culture by facilitating the
development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is
shared and supported by the school community.
1.2 Educational leaders communicate and collaborate with all members of the school
community, respond to diverse interests and needs, and mobilize resources to promote
student success.
1. 3 Educational leaders act with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical and legal manner.
Standard 2-Instructional Leadership
2.1 Educational Leaders facilitate the design and implementation of curricula and
strategic plans that enhance teaching and learning; ensure alignment of curriculum,
instruction, resources, and assessment; and promote the use of varied assessments to
measure student performance.
2.2 Educational leaders advocate, nurture, and sustain an instructional program and a
campus culture that are conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
2.3 Educational leaders implement a staff evaluation and development system to improve
the performance of all staff members, select and implement appropriate models for
supervision and staff development, and apply the legal requirements for personnel
management.
2.4 Educational leaders apply organizational, decision-making, and problem solving
skills to ensure an effective learning environment.
Standard 3-Adminstrative Leadership
3.1 Educational leaders apply principles of effective leadership and management in
relation to campus budgeting, personnel, resource utilization, financial management, and
technology use.
3.2 The principal knows how to apply principles of leadership and management to the
campus physical plant and support systems to ensure a safe and effective learning
environment.
Educational Technology
43
Standard 1-Research to Inform Practice-Students will be able to collect, evaluate and synthesize
research from a variety of appropriate sources in order to support decision making in design,
development, implementation, and evaluation of instructional systems.
Standard 2-Instructional Design-Students will be able to analyze, design, develop, implement
and evaluate instruction for a specific group of learners in a specific environment.
Standard 3-Media Design for Instruction-Students will use instructional technology to develop a
variety of media to deliver instruction to students and to engage students in learning.
Standard 4-Cognitive Research-Students will be able to apply theories and models of cognitive
research to instructional practice, curriculum restructuring and design.
Standard 5-Professionalism in Ed Tech-Students will be knowledgeable of the history of
instructional systems design and development, emerging trends, media applications, instructional
approaches and design processes used in creating performance technology solutions.
Reading Specialist
Standard 1-Written Communication-Students will demonstrate improvement in academic
writing.
Standard 2-Differentiate Instruction-Students will demonstrate an understanding of how to
differentiate instruction to meet the needs of different student populations.
Standard 3-Instructional Practice-Students will demonstrate an understanding of the different
appropriate instructional strategies for constructivist and direct instruction models of literacy.
Special Education
Standard 1- Program Development and Organization-Improve instructional programs at the
school and system levels; develop procedures to improve management systems; design
professional development to support the use of evidence-based practices; coordinate educational
standards with the needs of children with exceptionalities to access challenging curriculum
standards; use understanding of the effects of cultural social, and economic diversity and
variations of individual development to help develop programs and services for individuals with
exceptional needs.
Standard 2-Leadership and Policy-Advocate for legal and ethical policy that supports high
quality education for individuals with exceptional learning needs; provide leadership to create
procedures that respect all individuals and positive and productive work environments.
44
Standard 3-Student and Program Evaluation-Design and implement research to evaluate the
effectiveness of instructional practices and program goals, apply knowledge and skill at all stages
of the evaluation process for student learning of the general education curriculum and
individualized IEP goals.
Standard 4-Research and Inquiry-Use educational research to improve instructional and
intervention techniques and materials; foster an environment that supports instructional
improvement; engage in action research.
Standard 5-Collaboration-Understand the importance of collaboration and foster the integration
of services for individuals with exceptionalities; understand the role of collaboration for internal
and external stakeholders to promote understanding, resolve conflicts, and build consensus to
provide services to these students and their families; understand the interactions of language,
diversity, culture, and religion and use collaboration to enhance opportunities for individuals
with exceptionalities.
Standard 6-Professional Development and Ethical Practice-Safeguard the legal rights of students,
families, and personnel; plan, present, and evaluate professional development that focuses on
effective practice; continuously broaden personal professional knowledge, including expertise to
support student access to learning through effective teaching strategies, curriculum standards,
and assistive technology.
45