IUB Initial Program Conceptual Framework

The IUB School of Education mission statement focuses on improving teaching, learning and human development in a diverse, rapidly changing and increasingly technological society. Therefore, the school's conceptual framework for initial teacher preparation programs, informed by the six guiding principles, has as its primary focus the preparation of reflective, caring and highly skilled educational practitioners and scholars who lead in their chosen professions.

Through a deliberative, inclusive, and democratic process that was informed by the collective professional wisdom and experience of representatives from various sectors of the field of education, and the current scholarship on the preparation of teachers, IUB's conceptual framework was created (see Shared Vision). Through this process the principles of community, critical reflection, intellectual, personal, and professional growth, meaningful experience, knowledge and multiple forms of understanding, and personalized learning became the dominant themes guiding the development of new teacher education programs over the last several years (see Six Principles for an elaboration of the principles, their rationale, and evidence of their role within programs and courses). In addition to these six principles, IUB's teacher education programs incorporate inquiry as an overarching theme in an effort to encourage a spirit of intellectual engagement within the culture of teacher education within the School.

The knowledge bases that form the foundation of IUB's conceptual framework are as diverse as the faculty and students who make up the School of Education community. A teacher education program within a large research university naturally draws from various theoretical, ideological, and philosophical perspectives. This diversity, however, is regarded as a strength since it enriches the intellectual vitality of the institution and offers candidates insights into the field of education and its numerous issues, controversies, and debates. Evidence of this diversity can be found in the principles that have been identified as the basis for the conceptual framework and the various perspectives on teacher education from which they derive.

The commitment to community as an important principle reflects the influence of socio-cultural perspectives on teaching and learning, the value of collaborative teaching methods, and the importance of the 'ethic of caring' that can be promoted within learning communities. In our programs students are assessed on not only their individual performance but also tasks they accomplish collaboratively within communities of practice.

Emphasis on critical reflection affirms the importance of developing candidates' capacity to engage in thoughtful analysis of their own practices and the values that underpin them, the purposes of schooling and the social, economic, and political forces that shape the educational contexts in which they work.

Intellectual, personal, and professional growth draws from humanistic psychology as the source of an important dimension of teacher development and reminds us of the need to prepare teachers not merely as technicians, but more holistically as competent and creative individuals.

The centrality of meaningful experience to our programs suggests the influence of John Dewey's ideas as well as current perspectives on teaching and learning that suggest that powerful learning will only occur under circumstances where the learner regards the learning activity to be purposeful and relevant. Our candidates are assessed on their capacity to engage and reflect on these kinds of experiences themselves and their ability to create such experiences for their students.

In focusing on the acquisition of knowledge and multiple forms of understanding, we recognize the crucial importance of deep knowledge within the disciplines, the power of forging connections among disciplines, and the need to nurture diverse forms of knowledge, aptitude, and talent within the school curriculum.

We accept the significant challenge of promoting personalized learning in the context of a large School of Education. The research literature on learning styles, multiple intelligences, and the importance of personal control and agency in the learning process suggests that opportunities for individual choice and direction lead to more meaningful learning. Our candidates engage in generative learning activities in their courses and are also assessed on their ability to create such experiences for their students.

Finally, based on current scholarship on teacher education practice, we promote the process of inquiry as a key dimension of our work as scholars and teachers; we regularly assess candidates' inquiry projects; and we evaluate candidate's competence in fostering a spirit of inquiry among the students that they serve in schools and classrooms.

The Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) has adopted the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support and Consortium (INTASC) standards as a framework for the assessment of pre-service and beginning teachers. The knowledge, performances, and dispositions articulated in the documents generated by these organizations are integrally woven into the substance of our teacher education programs and have provided important guides to our curriculum development work (see Proficiencies and Standards). Evidence of the connections between our programs, courses, instructional practices, and assessment methods can be found throughout in the INTASC and IPSB matrices (on the Initial License Program pages) that link standards to teaching and assessment practices in our programs. IPSB guidelines require that teacher education institutions establish benchmarks over the course of their programs as points at which candidate performance is evaluated. In addition to the on-going assessment of INTASC and IPSB competencies in courses, program benchmarks provide an additional system of checkpoints for candidate progress. The ways that the conceptual framework is incorporated into specific programs can be found in documents available in the document room (see document room: Program Reports).

The six principles of the original conceptual framework have been used to generate a set of expectations for student teaching, the culminating experience for all of our programs in which candidates are assessed on their teaching competence. Specific examples of expectations for candidate performance and the criteria used to assess the knowledge, performances, and dispositions related to the SoE's guiding principles can be found in the Student Teaching Handbook.

Because they were derived from the collective efforts of the IUB teacher education community, the principles that form the basis of our conceptual framework reflect the ideals, values, and commitments that we regard to be most important. As a basis for the development of our teacher education programs they provide a sense of coherence as well as the potential for uniqueness, creative effort, and experimentation. If, at some point, we discover that they are somehow inadequate or need revision, we have a process of continuous review and a governance structure (see Policy Council (need network ID) and Teacher Education Council) to make adjustments as needed. Our conceptual framework reflects both the uniqueness of our institution and its connection to the vast body of professional knowledge. We are therefore confident that our work in the development of exemplary teacher education programs rests on a solid foundation and is commensurate with the high standards for which Indiana University stands.

The evidence of the conceptual framework and its impact on candidates, programs, faculty and virtually every activity of the School may be reviewed on the website. This includes discussion of shared vision, coherence, professional commitments and dispositions, commitment to diversity, commitment to technology, and candidate proficiencies as they are aligned with professional and state standards (see Conceptual Framework Elements).

The IU School of Education at Indianapolis and IUPUI Columbus collaboratively offer programs leading to Bachelor of Science degree that share a common conceptual framework embodied in the Principles of Teacher Education. The "Learning to Teach/Teaching to Learn" logo represents the multiple facets of the LT/TL program:

The cityscape at the center of the logo represents the Principles of Teacher Education, which are the core of "Learning to Teach/Teaching to Learn". These principles synthesize the school's vision for urban teacher preparation and the standards for performance and learning into a manageable and memorable framework. All aspects of the program -- curriculum, field experience, assessments, planning with arts and sciences faculty, conversations with candidates, work with cooperating teachers and school personnel -- contribute to the school's vision.

The V-shaped bars under the cityscape represent the foundation formed by the state and national standards and the knowledge bases used to guide program development. These include both discipline-based standards for new teachers as well as academic achievement standards for P-12 schools. The programs build on the IUPUI Principles of Undergraduate Learning and general education curriculum as it prepares education professionals to meet the INTASC and Indiana Professional Standards Boards Content and Developmental Standards for beginning teachers.

The overarching phrase "Learning to Teach" represents the curriculum that is the school's articulation of what is taught and how it is taught. The coursework is blocked so that faculty members collaborate across disciplines and focus on shared inquiry and deep conceptual development. The courses are carefully sequenced so that new experiences build on previous learning. Each strand of the curriculum is coordinated with different set of standards and develops the knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to teach children and youth in different contexts and levels.

The two diamonds located in the center on either side of the cityscape represent the ongoing cyclic process of reflection that is systematically built into the program. Candidates are taught to use technology as a tool for organizing and synthesizing their learning. They talk about their experiences and write in journals as they engage in cycles of learning and teaching. They learn that teaching requires constant critical thinking and problem solving. In a similar fashion, the faculty meets regularly to collaborate as teacher researchers who discuss their questions, collect data and candidate work, and share in the analysis and evaluation of the program.

Below the V-shaped bar, the phrase "Teaching to Learn" represents the partnerships with schools in the community that are key to the program. Candidates practice what they are learning in their courses and experience the diversity of urban schools as they work with children and teachers. Whenever possible, classes are taught onsite at Anchor and Partner Schools. Each block in the curriculum has a field experience component planned in collaboration with teachers at a partnership school site. The school's faculty, schoolteachers and candidates have created a learning community focused on learning to support children's learning.

The overall frame of the cityscape represents the unit assessment system that provides multiple measures for evaluating candidate performances and program quality. Candidates demonstrate their achievement of the professional standards in authentic teaching contexts. Time is set aside at the end of each semester to evaluate performance tasks and portfolios. This data, along with data collected on the performance of graduates, is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the curriculum and other program features. Regular dialogues with stakeholders make continuous improvement an ongoing process.

The Principles of Teacher Education are comprised of six key organizing principles that describe the understanding, commitments, and abilities which the school wants its candidates to develop. These principles were developed in coordination with a strong interest in preparing educators who can succeed in, and ultimately change, urban contexts.

IUPUI Shared Vision: The school continues to develop relationships and work in local schools and community centers as it sees a clear reciprocal process at work. As the school works with educators in each context, it has to continually explain its learning expectations. Often the school's goals for its candidates and those of the practitioners in the field form an uneasy juxtaposition. This opens the space for professional conversations as everyone involved puzzles through the differences in the perspectives. Sometimes these conversations take place in local schools at faculty meetings, study group sessions, or in the teachers' lounge. At other times, they take place at the university, during our annual Assessment and Curriculum Development Meetings with all the schools, during monthly Teacher Education meetings when faculty meet to work on the development of curriculum and assessments, informally as faculty teams meet to integrate their teaching efforts, or at the Committee on Teacher Education meetings which involve all stakeholders (see Teacher Education Meeting 8-29 and Teacher Education Meeting Minutes). The Principles of Teacher Education are shared with candidates during an induction (Important Information 2002-2002) conducted at the beginning of Block I when each candidate enters the teacher education program and with mentor teachers, principals, and student teachers at the beginning of the student teaching experience (see Student Teaching Handbook and Student Teaching Orientation Elementary)

The Principles of Teacher Education represent the most important performance abilities that teachers need to develop. The faculty generated the principles after it became clear that no single set of standards could be used to guide the work of any program. The Learning to Teach/Teaching to Learn program is built on the INTASC Standards and fourteen Content Area Standards of the Indiana Professional Standard Board, the Indiana Academic Standards for K-12 curriculum.

Coherence: The Principles of Teacher Education have been the cornerstone of the school's work in creating a coherent teacher education program, and the experiences in developing the program influence all of the programmatic work. The school has worked on developing curriculum and assessment for the Learning to Teach/Teaching to Learn Program steadily for about five years. The Principles of Teacher Education have been used to cluster strands of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that run throughout the program, such as diversity or classroom management strands. Curriculum for the new standards-based programs starting during Fall 2002 was written using this conceptual framework.

The school's programs support students' development of complex understandings that takes a multiplicity of relevant experience. Specific experiences have been designed so that all candidates have agreed upon content addressed in curriculum guides and unit assessment system. Faculty members also include the specific principles their courses address in their syllabi and evaluate the candidate's development toward those principles through specific learning experiences.

Commitment to Diversity: The Indiana University School of Education at Indianapolis is committed to preparing candidates to teach diverse student populations. This commitment is evident in the teaching, modeling, curriculum, field experiences and ongoing collaboration with urban schools. Diversity is a strand that runs throughout the Principles of Teacher Education. The principles address a broad range of diversity including cultural, social-economic, ethnicity, race, sexual preference and special needs. Although Principle Five most clearly addresses the ability of teachers to value and teach about diversity and to recognize the impact of social, cultural, economic, and political system on daily school life, Principle Two addresses the candidate's need to entertain students' multiple perspectives. Principle Three notes the importance of candidates having the ability to encourage learners to see, question and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives, and Principle Four addresses supporting learners with special needs.

Commitment to Technology: Technology is an expectation that is woven throughout all the school's programs and is conveyed to the candidates through the Principles of Teacher Education as well as through course projects and instructor modeling. The school is committed to engaging faculty and candidates in activities that develop educators who are able to use technology to help all students learn. Principle One establishes the unit's expectation that all candidates use a variety of media and technology in order to communicate and solve problems in the classroom. The unit has integrated the use of technology by candidates and faculty throughout its programs.

Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Professional and State Standards: The school has aligned its programs with institutional, state, national and professional organization standards. The Principles of Teacher Education were derived from the INTASC Standards and IUPUI Principles of Undergraduate Learning. Programs have been designed to address not only the Principles of Teacher Education but also the appropriate Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) developmental and content area standards. Content area faculty have worked to align secondary and all-grade programs with professional organization standards as well as Indiana Academic Standards for K-12 curriculum.

The unit assessment system is designed to assess whether candidates have developed the skills, knowledge, and dispositions the school has envisioned and whether they have met the standards set forth by the state and national organizations. The student assessments involve multiple measures and benchmarks (admission criteria, PPST, Block I Rubric, Block II Performance Task, Student Teaching Portfolio).

Advanced programs in the unit operate from a set of principles and beliefs that are articulated in the IUB conceptual framework description. What follows builds upon the most current research in the preparation of education professionals. Further, it builds upon the unit's framework for initial teacher education and expands it for those who will be in advanced programs. The unit's Graduate Studies Committee (GSC), which oversees program development and implementation, is committed to excellence, innovation, collaboration, and research in the preparation of education professionals for the highest levels of practice and service in schools, organizations, and communities.

All advanced programs of study facilitate the understanding, integration, and application of knowledge with the aim of improving practice and contributing to new knowledge. Through research activities, faculty and candidates expand and refine the knowledge base for teaching and learning. In response to the richness and complexity of the pluralistic society in which we live, all advanced programs infuse diversity into the curriculum as well as into research activities of candidates. Our faculty develops and supports knowledgeable, caring, and reflective professionals who are committed to excellence and equity for all learners. Advanced studies candidates are encouraged to demonstrate their growth and development in meaningful ways in their communities and professional organizations. Innovative programs and the integration of technology provide the opportunity for advanced candidates to develop, examine, evaluate, and practice professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions.

Just as initial programs have adopted a set of guiding principles aligned with Interstate New Teacher and Support Consortium (INTASC) Principles, the advanced program faculty embrace the five core propositions of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) along with a set of beliefs that have informed advanced programs in the past. Since several of the advanced programs are nationally recognized and are in compliance with the standards of their representative accrediting bodies, the advanced conceptual framework generally applies to those programs who have decided not to seek national recognition. These include advanced programs in art education, elementary education, secondary education, social studies education, special education, educational leadership (ISLLC guided), and language education.

In 1996, in preparation for the 1997 NCATE/IPSB accreditation visit, an advanced program conceptual framework was developed and approved as applicable to all programs. The 1996 framework included three elements that provided direction for advanced programs: becoming agents of educational change, modeling reflective practice, and developing skills for scholarly inquiry. However, as we have studied and reflected on these three primary elements, we realized the need to provide a stronger foundation for advanced students in assessing teaching and learning, a clearly stated focus on the need for skills to teach all learners, a careful and thoughtful emphasis on ensuring that content knowledge was strengthened and aligned with current research, an expansion of knowledge, skills and dispositions that deal with understanding policy, community, organizations, ethical and legal issues, and the infusion of technology into course offerings and program delivery.

The impetus for advanced program redesign developed through a series of focus groups conducted with a variety of stakeholders throughout the state, because of a change in the political climate that emphasized stronger performance assessment and accountability, greater collaboration and partnerships with schools and colleagues in the College of Arts and Sciences, and due to incentives that encourage National Board Certification for practicing teachers. Since 2000, graduate faculty in the School of Education has been involved in a series of activities to review, assess, and evaluate existing advanced programs. So far, these efforts have been primarily directed toward externally accredited programs. Within the last year, however, those programs that do not enjoy national accreditation have become the target of review efforts.

Attendance by several faculty members at two national conferences on advanced programs, sponsored jointly by NCATE and NBPTS, afforded the opportunity to talk with national board certified teachers and to collect ideas about program design and assessment from these model educators. Meetings with program coordinators to determine their perception of the strengths and weaknesses of our current programs provided evidence for the need to update and revise a number of existing programs. The prevailing attitude was the desire to collaborate across departments and to design programs that meet the current demands on advanced teaching professionals. While no final design has been accomplished, one favored design option is to develop a set of agreed-upon core courses combined with specializations in such areas as technology, reading, special education, global and multicultural education, research, assessment and evaluation.

We conducted several focus groups with potential candidates for advanced programs and we evaluated a satisfaction survey from our recent graduates of existing programs. Our findings can be summarized as follows.

Content knowledge: The majority of comments centered on the need to be up-to-date on changes in their content field and changes in how students respond to subject matter. One respondent commented: "One has to update oneself not only on, say, current affairs in social studies, but also what adolescents in this generation may think or feel about these affairs." Another student added: "Courses need to encompass changes in adolescent development and changes in, say, media use in the art classroom, both are important and they are important together." Another student provided an example in mathematics education: "Five years ago, no one offered Advanced Placement Statistics and so none of the teachers have a background in Statistics." Several candidates referred to the new standards and how to integrate subject matter knowledge into the curriculum: "We have to start having our standards on our desks and be able to show the correlation between our planning books and the standards."

Pedagogical knowledge: Candidates overwhelmingly felt well prepared to teach and thought they had been exposed to a wide variety of teaching methods and philosophies. However, a need for greater emphasis on special needs students emerged. One respondent stressed the need to discuss both high-end and low-end learning needs in the same class. She envisioned this class dealing with real-world problems such as an autistic child who is gifted in particular areas. Another student emphasized the need to have the whole range of learning problems addressed: "I was only able to take classes in mild disabilities. There is nothing offered on severe and profound disabilities. This not only limits my abilities (and licensure options) in special education, but as a regular classroom teacher makes me more dependent on special education teachers."

Assessment: Assessment also emerged as an important subject. Several candidates pointed out that the classes where a specific assessment project was undertaken were particularly useful and that the greater the exposure to the variety of assessment tools, the more confident they felt using them. Additionally, several respondents pointed out that assessment is closely tied to accountability, now mandated by state law and will continue to have a profound effect on the way teachers teach. There were mixed opinions on how well prepared IU candidates are to deal with the new teaching standards and their relation to assessment and accountability.

In response to how the programs could better meet these needs, the following suggestions were offered: "We need to know basic research and where resources are located. We need to know how to assess information as we correlate standards into practice." Another candidate proposed: "We need to know how to integrate the standards not just from our areas but those from all areas."

Inquiry/ability to conduct research: When asked how important the acquisition of research skills were for them, one respondent said: "Teachers need to be researchers. Research is left to higher education, but higher education researchers do not have to apply their research in a classroom. We have gotten a lot better about doing research (action research), but being able to understand and filter information is important too."

Overall, candidates indicated that the classes they took in action research as well as their capstone inquiry projects were very helpful. The majority of candidates agreed that their program had adequately prepared them to conduct scholarly inquiry.

National Board Certification: When the focus group was asked about their interest in National Board certification, most candidates indicated a real interest. However, they indicated that compensation is crucial. "Compensation is key. We need to be rewarded, not just recognized."

Other topics: Candidates also emphasized the need to learn more about technology and how to best use it in the classroom. Several respondents indicated the importance of community-building with peers. Others stressed the importance of flexibility in program design. In particular, practicing teachers were concerned about flexibility in scheduling, in the selection of program components, and in program delivery. Summer intensive courses and course delivery via distance education appears to be a strong preference among practicing professionals. They expressed an overwhelming need for good advising and mentoring. Many candidates stressed the importance of becoming part of a community of learners and having a very clear program of studies.

The results from these focus groups and from surveys of graduates form an important part of the process of program revision. Another important source of input comes from our Armstrong Scholars who were identified and selected by their school districts as master teachers. This group of outstanding, experienced teachers-in-residence will continue to be involved in program design and evaluation, candidate assessment and program delivery.

We realize that our advanced program revision is still in its early stages. The GSC will involve other stakeholders as we progress in the redesign of advanced teaching programs. The result of our deliberations and our efforts so far are captured in the seven propositions below that serve as goals for our revised programs. They incorporate our original three principles from the 1996 conceptual framework and the five NBPTS propositions into a revised conceptual framework for advanced programs. Advanced program candidates:

• are committed to all students and their learning.
• know the subject they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.
• are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.
• think systematically about their practice and learn from experience.
• are members of learning communities.
• are capable of facilitating positive change in educational settings.
• are able to utilize technology in their fields of practice.

The elements of the new framework form the basis for advanced program courses, admissions procedures, retention in programs, entrance in the internship or practicum, and for graduation. To assess candidates' knowledge, skills and dispositions, candidates are expected to complete a reflection and collaboration journal, and complete a self-assessment instrument focused on the above principles at least three times during their program of study. Further, each candidate will be assigned two research projects with the first one being conducted in the classroom and the second being conducted with a small group of peers. Together with these assessment tools and those distributed in coursework and field experiences, we will have ample evidence for the continuing evaluation of candidate performance and program effectiveness.

As faculty members revise their courses, the GSC ensures that all standards of the IPSB and national professional organizations are integrated into the design of programs. Furthermore, the committee is responsible to ensure that the goals and objectives included in the framework are covered during the program of study. A grid is available which illustrates the alignment of standards with the elements of the advanced conceptual framework. Additionally, please note the practices and assessments that are associated with each of the framework elements. Program matrices for all advanced programs that are not nationally accredited will be presented and reviewed by the GSC during the coming school year.

When we initiated our program redesign, it was important to ensure alignment among NCATE Standards, INTASC Principles, ISLLC Standards, IPSB Content and School Setting Standards as well as ensure congruence with our Conceptual Framework. A document published by the IPSB titled, Analysis of Unifying Themes Across all Development Levels was particularly instructive to our planning and design efforts. Further, another article from the IPSB also provided alignment information that linked the IPSB Standards with INTASC Principles and NCATE Standards. A final alignment document was used extensively and provided linkages among INTASC Principles, NCATE Standards, and the NBPTS Core Propositions.

By ascertaining that the following eight unifying themes are included in our advanced programs, the alignment tables cited above provide assurance that standards from the identified groups have been accommodated both in our UAS and in our program design. The unifying concepts are:

• Content knowledge
• Growth and development and creating learning environments
• Curriculum study
• Instructional strategies
• Assessment of student learning
• Professionalism and collaborative behaviors
• Building family and community environments
• Field experiences (using the candidates' classrooms)

Typically, advanced program candidates are experienced educators. As such they are already employed within complex, pluralistic learning communities that include students, teachers, administrators, staff, parents and representatives of the surrounding community. Their initial licensure documents their mastery of entry-level requirements and standards. Advanced programs are designed to hone and augment skills and understandings that have been acquired, and do so in the context of the candidate accumulating professional experience. Advanced study, research, collegial experience, and a deeper understanding of factors that influence student learning and growth inform these programs. The above comments frame our vision for advanced-level study in education leading to the Accomplished Practitioner Teaching License as well as the Master's or higher degree. Upon completion of the course of study, candidates are accomplished educators whose practices are consistent with professional organizations or National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.