School of Education Meeting May 16, 2001
Faculty Retreat 5/16/01
ECED Brainstorming List
1) Field Experience
2) Standard lesson plan
3) Artifacts > Working portfolio
4) Pathwise& Objectives
- Realignmment
- Spread
- New
5) Student teaching
6) Where: How reflection
7 ) Student awareness of standards: Frameworks
8) Dispositions
9) ECED 3013: Technology
Key artifacts that will be attached to each of the courses that will be attached to a working portfolio were identified.
.
Fall Retreat -
Tentative September 9-11
By the end of December, all initial syllabi need to be brought into alignment.
Syllabi have to contain explicit statements of the standards, as well as Pathwise domains.
By the fall term, this needs to be complete.
Assessment pieces and rubrics need to be evaluated under the grant as well.
All decisions are based on performance.
Copies of rubics and syllabi are needed to be distributed.
ECED is operating on acceptance of a conceptual framework. They have moved on past the acceptance and gone to the implementation.
Tried to focus on the outcomes of student learning.
MLED
- Reconceptualized the conceptual framework.
- Took a different framework in terms of the NCATE standards
- Ended up looking at the document as a set of outcomes. The conceptual framework is generated from these outcomes
- Structtire
- Components
- Collaboration and consensus - Student leearning is at the center of it. Efforts need to be nade to meet
- Program operation
- ALl decisions made are based on performance. Set of courses and clinical experience that would get you there translateed into knowledge skillls and dispositions
- Assessment
- Frequent, multiple, oral, wirtten , performance based
Continuing education and staff development
Recruit, develop and maintain faculty
Integrating theory and practice
4) Program teaching and improvement
- Evaluation of teaching, and the entire system
- Communication of outcomes
- External reporting
- Candidates themselves
- Self improvement opportunities
- Demonstrate improvement in knowledge and skill between admission and graduation
1) Specific program operation
2) Elaboration of CF
3) Institutional mission, Department missions, Development of purpose in professional committments to ML programs
a) Getting together with faculty from Arts and Sciences
- State licensrue standardsd
- Performance based
- Math/Science
English & Social Studies
- Program operation
- Phase I
Courses in clincial experience with consequences and frequent assessment
Matrix started that has a process, then has documentation
Standards
Course
Activity
Expected Excellence for the Performance
Praxis 1 connections
- Courses,. GPA other indicators that let find some way to communicate to student s
- change objectives to performance based for the course end review
- Redesign course evaluation piece to fit these four domains
- This feeds peer review and evavluations
To do
- Get with methods people in math/science
- Arkansas curriculum frameworks
- Technology
- Clarify state and professional standards and grade levels identified in the licenses
- Matrix
- Conceptual framework questions
- Portfolio as outcome works well
- Identify the portfolio as an exit piece
- If studenets are preassessed in 2001 for portfolio compatibility then they can verify learning throughout the process
- Weakness - parents and community
How to improve this?
- Integration of technology was weak
- Doveristy wsas weak
- Field experience, refine and map that
- SECONDARY EDUCATION
Working portfolio
- Modeled after the exit portfolio
- Teaching process - the tasks align across curriculum
- Electronic
- Student maintained/Responsabilities
- CD ROM/RW
Text
MS Word - OFfice products
Seed 2002- 4556 - Content 4703
Graphics?
Do with it? Burn a copy for NCATE purposes
Tasks in working portfoliios
1) Philosophy
2) Case sstudies in diversity -T ask 2
- RAP Reflection
- Adaptive PE/Reflectiv e
- Hypothetical Profiles
- DAP learning styles
- Interviews
- Unity
Lesson plans - Task 4
Phase 2 so on....
Mary Gunter
- Students that will be a part of the program
15 counseling people
10 MTLL people
13 EDLD people
9 ED.S students
Point that is different is that there will no be other groups starting until Spring 2003. Universities who have more resources can have more cohorts.
- Lists who are screened . Many with a TEch background
- Norms of operation
As we move with the perfofrmance based model, we have public debates in front of our students as they move from one course to another.
Reduce the debate in front of the students.
- Use of APA 4th
- Artifacct development as assesseed
- Performance assessments
- Eliminating points during grades
- As National sttandards are considered, national boards are shifting to Levels 3,2,1
- Weighting 3=a 2=b
- Technology assessment results
- CLL Prograrm of study and design of Ed. S. program of study discussed
Next
- Surviving the next few days
Implement and then revise
Dr. Fleniken
- Request that all be conversant with what is happening here
- Some will be asked to help with portfolio review committees
- Change as it has not been seen before in the public schools is getting ready to occur.
--
Becky - National Board reprot
- Things that are being done are cutting edge here
= Only certifies that the teacher is high standards at the location
- Learners are on a journey
- They can bank scores
- More support is coming for teachers who are working on this effort
- NCATE/NBPTS partners
- Relationship
- Two organizaations that consider the credentialing of teachers
- As NCATE comes into institutions to begin the process, if you have a master's level program it should coordinate all up and down the line
- Concern for the 5th year program
- How do we allow the students to understand what they can do with knowledge?
- Issues that are changing
- Differentiation in the licensing and in the certification between alternativve annd other
- Diversification of roles and responsabilities within the school
- Consider the end of the program of study that they would be responsnable for a teaching and learning conference to be held in the area
The conference would be the performance