WIU’s
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program
Conceptual
Framework1
Introduction
Founded
in
1899
in
rural
West
Central
Illinois,
the
Western
Illinois
State
Normal
School
was
established
to
address
teacher
preparation
in
the
state’s
grammar
schools,
particularly
in
the
semi‐rural
areas
of
West
Central
Illinois.
The
faculty
and
students
of
Western
were
eager
to
meet
this
need,
and
the
institution
soon
became
known
for
its
well‐rounded,
deeply
committed
graduates,
a
tradition
that
continues.
Teacher
preparation
was
the
first
official
program,
and
its
first
students
graduated
in
1905
(Hursh,
1927).
The
name
was
changed
to
Western
Illinois
State
Teachers
College
in
1921
and
then
to
Western
Illinois
University
(WIU)
in
1957.
The
institutional
mission
expanded
to
include
programs
that
prepared
high
school
teachers,
the
state’s
earliest
and
most
successful
extension
program,
a
multi‐faceted
graduate
school,
and
liberal
arts
programs.
Today,
WIU
is
comprised
of
four
distinguished
colleges
that
include
Arts
and
Sciences,
Business
and
Technology,
Education
and
Human
Services,
and
Fine
Arts
and
Communication.
Western
has
earned
and
maintains
a
reputation
for
expanding
public
access
to
affordable,
high
quality
degree
programs
and
fostering
student
involvement
in
University
activities.
Western
is
now
a
leading
university
with
a
residential
campus
in
Macomb,
a
commuter
campus
in
the
Quad
Cities,
and
extension
and
distance
learning
programs.
WIU
has
been
nationally
recognized
for
recruiting
and
retaining
first
generation,
low‐income
and
minority
students.
With
an
outstanding,
diverse
faculty
and
staff
committed
to
multicultural
and
international
education,
WIU
offers
undergraduate
and
graduate
programs
of
study
to
more
than
12,500
students
from
Illinois,
across
the
nation,
and
around
the
world.
Western’s
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program
(TPEP)
prepares
and
graduates
teachers
and
other
school
professionals
as
educational
leaders,
school
counselors,
school
psychologists,
and
communicative
disorders
specialists
for
our
region,
state
and
nation.
Our
vision
is
that
Western
Illinois
University
will
be
the
leader
in
educational
quality,
opportunity,
and
affordability
among
its
peers.
Our
mission
is
that
by
enacting
our
values
and
creating
a
synergy
between
instruction,
research,
creativity
and
service,
Western
Illinois
University
prepares
and
supports
a
socially
responsible,
diverse
student,
faculty,
and
staff
population
to
lead
in
the
global
society.
Our
values
focus
on
academic
excellence,
educational
opportunity,
personal
growth,
and
social
responsibility
(Western
Illinois
University
Catalogue,
2009).
The
initial,
advanced
and
other
school
professional
programs
that
constitute
Western’s
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program
are
informed
by
similar
professional
aspirations.
The
connection
of
WIU’s
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program
to
these
aims
is
visible
in
our
unit’s
vision,
motto
and
1
Updated
January
22,
2010
1
graphic
representation
of
our
conceptual
framework
and
in
its
mission
statement,
values
and
standards
that
follow.
TPEP
Vision
Our
graduates
will
be
empowered
educational
professionals
deeply
committed
to
continuous
learning
and
the
empowerment
of
all
learners.
Approved
August
22,
2008
TPEP
Motto
Empowerment
for
learning.
Learning
for
empowerment
Our
Graphic
Representation
of
Conceptual
Framework
Approved
August
22,
2008
Approved
August
22,
2008
TPEP
Mission
Statement
The
WIU
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program
empowers
candidates
to
become
educational
practitioners
who
engage
in
informed
action
that
is
grounded
in
knowledge
and
reflection;
who
are
deeply
committed
to
the
highest
standards
of
professional
practice;
who
are
able
to
adapt
to
emerging
social,
economic,
and
cultural
landscapes;
who
are
skilled
in
the
use
of
technological
tools
that
promote
teaching
and
learning;
and
who
are
committed
to
empowering
all
learners.
Approved
August
22,
2008
2
TPEP
Values
Commitment.
A
deep
emotional
and
intellectual
investment
to
becoming
a
caring
and
compassionate
professional
dedicated
to
personal
growth,
excellence,
and
service
to
one’s
professional
community,
with
the
ultimate
aim
of
empowering
all
learners.
Knowledge.
Informed,
critically
examined,
research‐based,
data‐driven,
and
experientially
grounded
understanding
of
learners,
content,
pedagogy,
technology,
and
the
standards
associated
with
one’s
professional
practice.
Action.
Professional
practice
that
embodies
the
focused
and
skillful
application
of
knowledge
and
understanding
informed
by
reflection
and
a
deep
commitment
to
learners
and
their
ultimate
empowerment.
Reflection.
Analytical
and
thoughtful
examination
of
one’s
knowledge,
understanding,
and
practice
resulting
in
more
targeted
and
refined
action
that
empowers
student
learning.
Empowerment.
The
creation
of
a
professional
community
wherein
candidates
develop
the
capability,
confidence,
efficacy,
and
sense
of
authority,
enabling
them
to
create
a
community
that
positively
transforms
the
lives
and
actions
of
all
learners
and
engages
them
in
attaining
their
full
potential.
Approved
August
22,
2008
TPEP
Standards
1.
The
competent
candidate
knows,
reflects
on,
acts
in
accordance
with,
and
is
committed
to
professional
standards
governing
his
or
her
subject
matter,
expectations
for
learners
as
described
in
the
appropriate
content
standards,
and
making
such
content
meaningful
and
empowering
for
all
learners.
2.
The
competent
candidate
knows,
reflects
on,
acts
in
accordance
with,
and
is
committed
to
research‐based
best
practices
that
promote
the
growth,
development,
learning,
and
empowerment
of
all
individuals
representing
the
social
fabric
of
our
diverse
society.
3.
The
competent
candidate
knows,
reflects
on,
acts
in
accordance
with,
and
is
committed
to
research‐based
principles
governing
the
planning
of
instruction,
the
creation
and
maintenance
of
positive,
safe
learning
communities,
the
implementation
of
appropriate
technological
tools,
and
the
use
of
varied
approaches
to
impact,
assess,
and
empower
learning.
3
4.
The
competent
candidate
knows,
reflects
on,
acts
in
accordance
with,
and
is
committed
to
the
importance
of
professional
dispositions,
especially
those
that
advance
fairness
and
the
belief
that
all
individuals
can
be
empowered
to
learn.
5.
The
competent
candidate
knows,
reflects
on,
acts
in
accordance
with,
and
is
committed
to
the
principles
that
govern
the
application
of
his
or
her
knowledge
of
subject
matter,
the
empowerment
of
learners,
and
the
acquisition
of
practical
and
professional
skills
during
field
and
clinical
experiences,
and
to
the
continual
improvement
of
professional
performance.
Approved
August
22,
2008
As
our
motto,
Empowerment
for
learning;
Learning
for
empowerment,
indicates,
we
understand
that
education
is
both
a
social
function
and
a
social
end.
Recognizing
and
mediating
this
duel
reality
is
a
complex
endeavor
in
a
democracy
such
as
ours.
Dewey
(1916)
remarks
that
the
process
of,
“securing
direction
and
development
in
the
immature
through
their
participation
in
the
life
of
the
group
to
which
they
belong,”
is
an
aim
of
education
broadly.
He
cautions
us
to
recognize
that
this
“education
will
vary
with
the
quality
of
life
which
prevails
in
the
group”
(p.
81).
This
quality
is
a
product
of
our
Unit’s
vision,
mission,
values,
and
standards
and
is
foundational
to
these
ideals
and
our
educational
programs.
Dewey
further
articulates
that
“[p]articularly
is
it
true
that
a
society
which
not
only
changes
but
which
has
the
ideal
of
such
change
as
will
improve
it,
will
have
different
standards
and
methods
of
education
from
one
which
aims
simply
at
the
perpetuation
of
its
own
customs”
(p.
81).
With
empowerment
as
both
our
process
and
goal
we
believe
that
we
embrace
Dewey’s
aim
of
education
where
the
“object
and
reward
of
learning
is
continued
capacity
for
growth”
(p.
100).
We
recognize
that
this
maybe
a
challenging
task,
however
democracy
itself
is
a
challenging
project
whose
improvement
parallels
its
educational
institutions.
As
we
embrace
these
ideals
and
the
charge
they
bring,
Dewey
(1934)
both
advises
and
cautions
us
that
our
conceptual
framework
must
“attempt
to
discover
what
education
is
and
how
it
takes
place”
(p.
194).
Thus
is
the
task
of
the
remainder
of
this
framework,
while
Dewey’s
warning
is
heeded
these
conceptual
ideals
must
be
grounded
with
a
sense
of
reality.
We
realize
that
education
constantly
changes
to
meet
the
needs
of
society
and
the
resulting
changes
are
inseparable
from
shifts
occurring
within
that
society.
We
recognize
that
at
as
we
face
an
accelerating
reliance
upon
and
access
to
technology
and
we
are
increasingly
aware
of
the
growth
of
our
culturally
diverse
population.
Effective
educators
must
be
adept
at
responding
to
an
ever‐changing
society;
appreciate
the
importance
of
our
diverse
population;
be
adapt
to
emerging
social,
economic,
and
demographic
patterns;
be
skilled
in
the
use
of
technology
tools
to
promote
teaching
and
learning
in
our
nation’s
schools
for
the
betterment
of
our
democracy.
4
With
this
end
in
view,
our
candidates
in
our
initial,
advanced
and
other
school
professional
programs
understand
that
certain
issues
are
non‐negotiable.
Every
child
is
a
unique
human
being
who
deserves
an
empowering
education
with
respect
and
dignity.
Candidates
must
also
understand,
however,
that
individual
and
situational
differences
dictate
that
teachers
and
educational
professionals
demonstrate
flexibility
in
solving
unanticipated
and
novel
problems
that
may
arise
in
meeting
the
needs
of
each
child.
Candidates
must
also
contend
with
the
differing
educational
expectations
of
students,
parents,
local‐community,
state
and
federal
mandates.
Each
portion
of
our
overall
program
requires
a
commitment
to
a
continual
process
of
inquiry,
action,
and
reflection.
As
with
our
candidates
our
program
cannot
function
effectively
if
we
become
complacent
and
unreflective
about
either
our
respective
disciplines
or
our
practice.
To
meet
the
educational
demands
of
our
evolving
society,
our
unit’s
conceptual
framework
(motto,
vision
mission,
values
and
standards)
reflects
and
embraces
the
core
components
of
our
program.
The
graphic
representation
and
its
individual
values
serve
as
reminders
of
the
conceptual
ideals
that
matter
in
success
of
our
undergraduate
and
advanced
programs.
This
representation,
its
values
and
the
forthcoming
statements
alone,
however,
cannot
capture
the
subtleties
of
a
program.
Although
one
familiar
with
our
program
would
readily
see
the
connections
between
the
values,
our
mission
statement,
and
actual
practice,
such
connections
must
be
more
explicitly
articulated
if
they
are
to
inform
our
understanding
and
practice.
What
follows
are
statements
to
further
define
and
operationalize
our
values.
These
statements
are
not
meant
to
be
defining
ends
in
themselves;
they
are
statements
for
departure
and
exploration
of
understanding
and
practice
in
our
educational
endeavors.
Each
value
will
be
addressed
separately.
However
in
our
discussion,
as
in
practice,
overlap
and
fusion
will
exist.
Commitment
A
deep
emotional
and
intellectual
investment
to
becoming
a
caring
and
compassionate
professional
dedicated
to
personal
growth,
excellence,
and
service
to
one’s
professional
community,
with
the
ultimate
aim
of
empowering
all
learners.
Analysis
Types:
self
and
other(s)
(Individual
(e.g.
students),
institutional
(e.g.
classroom,
school,
district),
profession)
Foci:
learners;
society
(democracy);
professional
knowledge;
professional
standards;
personal
and
professional
growth
Basis/Sources
or
Ends:
personal
morality;
professional
codes
of
conduct
and
ethics;
human
flourishing
Expanded
definition:
Within
the
context
of
the
WIU
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program,
commitment
refers
to
the
personal
and
professional
investment
candidates
must
make
as
a
professional
and
to
the
individuals
and
institutions
that
they
5
serve.
The
candidate’s
commitment
must
be
focused
on
both
the
individual
learners
and
the
ideals
of
our
democracy
(e.g.
liberty,
equality
and
the
tension
their
combination
bring).
Candidates
must
be
committed
to
gaining,
understanding
and
utilizing
the
professional
knowledge
and
standards
within
their
field
as
models
and
leaders
in
doing
what
is
right
and
best.
Additionally
the
candidate
must
be
committed
to
his
or
her
own
personal
and
professional
growth,
this
area
of
commitment
requires
both
personal
and
professional
reflection
on
one’s
shortcomings
and
strengths
and
seeking
and
offering
assistant
for
improvement.
Commitment
is
at
the
heart
of
human
relationships
where
trust,
responsibility
and
integrity
form
early
inceptions,
however
in
the
context
of
our
educational
unit
the
candidate’s
commitment
must
recognize
the
ends
of
the
human
flourishing
and
empowerment
of
learners
as
well
as
his
or
her
own
flourishing
in
the
day‐to‐day
context
of
professional
practice.
The
qualities
of
commitment
that
permeate
WIU’s
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program
are
readily
seen
in
four
character
emphases:
freedom
of
mind,
intellectual
engagement,
shared
leadership,
and
sustained
professional
development.
The
commitment
to
and
development
of
these
emphases
presupposes
certain
beliefs
and
actions.
Our
faculty
members
believe
that
education
has
a
salutary
effect.
Such
a
statement
may
appear
self‐evident,
but
it
is
frequently
challenged
by
those
who
hold
that
the
problems
we
face
are
simply
too
great.
Many
in
society,
it
seems,
sense
that
educators
are
engaged
in
an
honorable
but
unwinnable
battle–a
gallant
but
tragic
endeavor.
Candidates
recognize
the
inevitable
difficulties
associated
with
their
practice,
but
with
the
assistance
of
the
faculty
they
have
developed
what
might
be
called
reasoned
optimism.
However,
our
Unit’s
reasoned
optimism
is
built
upon
sophisticated
knowledge
of
successful
programs
and
best
practices
(Conchas
&
Noguera,
2006;
Sizer,
2004;
Meier,
2003;
Noguera,
2003;
Merrow,
2001;
Resnick,
1999;
Scheurich,
1998).
Freedom
of
Mind
Reasoned
optimism
stands
in
direct
opposition
to
blind
faith.
It
requires
a
critical
eye,
and
this
requires
the
freedom
to
question
and
to
speak
one’s
mind.
It
requires
freedom
of
mind
(Dewey,
1937).
Minimally,
this
means
encouraging
learners
to
be
honest:
honest
about
their
hopes,
their
fears,
and
their
doubts.
It
means
encouraging
future
educators
to
find
their
own
path
to
success
in
the
classroom
or
in
the
other
educational
settings
in
which
they
may
find
themselves.
Freedom
of
mind
means
more
than
examining
one’s
feelings,
however,
just
as
it
is
more
than
a
fundamental
characteristic
of
the
academic
freedom
the
University
espouses.
With
its
opportunities
and
its
demands,
the
modern
world
is
capable
of
dulling
perception
and
constraining
action.
Persons
may
come
to
see
themselves
and
others
as
rather
one‐dimensional:
indistinguishable
from
all
others
in
their
“flatness.”
At
core,
such
an
image
is
incompatible
with
our
commitment
to
diversity
and
requires
that
our
candidates
practice
something
akin
to
Marcuse’s
“Great
Refusal”
(1964).
Permission
must
exist
to
openly
question
practices
and
policies.
The
purpose
of
such
questioning
is
not
mere
analysis,
nor
is
it
the
cynicism
of
the
unremitting
skeptic.
Freedom
of
mind
is
6
about
being
able
to
choose
wisely
in
a
discerning
manner.
Ultimately,
it
is
the
commitment
to
integrity.
Success
in
education
requires
knowledge
of
strategies
that
work,
but
the
fact
that
certain
strategies
do
what
they
purport
to
do
is
not
sufficient
justification
for
using
them.
Honesty
and
integrity
are
essential
if
candidates
are
to
think
ethically
and
systematically
about
schools
and
about
their
practice
(Hansen,
2007;
Duffy,
2006;
Ayers,
2004; Noddings,
2003;
Maxcy,
2002;
Brogan
&
Brogan,
1999;
Haydon,
1997;
Lemings,
1993).
They
must
be
prepared
to
ask
not
just
whether
something
“works”
but
also
whether
it
is
good,
fair,
right,
and
whether
it
aligns
with
our
highest
collective
ideals
what
Noddings
(2003;
1984)
identifies
as
the
“ethical
ideal”
(p.
134).
A
Great
Refusal
permits
learners
to
reject
empty
slogans
and
wishful
thinking,
but
it
also
permits
them
to
reject
“effective”
practices
that
diminish
human
beings
and
limit
the
empowerment
of
learners.
Although
freedom
of
mind
may
appear
largely
philosophical,
it
is
eminently
practical.
Decades
ago,
John
Dewey
noted
an
incongruity
between
schools’
stated
belief
in
democratic
decision
making
and
the
realization
that
many
graduates
were
unable
or
unwilling
to
participate
in
such
decisions.
His
explanation
was
that
the
difficulty
lay
in
the
disconnection
between
articulated
principles
and
actual
practice.
He
suggested
that
passive
recipients
of
moral
character
and
political
intelligence
would
inevitably
respond
with
apathy
and
non‐participation
(1916).
Moreover,
many
scholars
have
noted
that
it
is
not
enough
to
act
in
a
particular
way
if
one
does
not
understand
or
appreciate
the
principles
beneath
such
action.
Persons
must
understand
why
they
act
and
what
their
actions
mean.
Without
this
developed
skill,
individuals
are
readily
susceptible
to
the
subtle
coercion
of
institutions
and
forces
that
serve
to
develop
tastes
and
dispositions
of
which
they
may
not
even
be
aware
(Apple,
2004;
Apple,
1996;
Spring,
2005;
Barber,
1998a;
Barber,
1998b;
Gutmann,
1987).
Our
candidates
are
expected
to
question
and
are
coached
into
freedom
of
mind
so
that
they
enter
the
profession
prepared
to
make
intelligent
and
ethical
educational
decisions.
Intellectual
Engagement
Noddings
(2003/1984)
is
perhaps
best
known
for
her
research
on
caring.
Persons
unfamiliar
with
Noddings’
work
may
mistake
the
notion
of
caring
for
more
common
forms
of
affection.
In
reality,
her
conception
of
ethic
of
care
is
nearly
synonymous
with
engagement:
engaging
people,
engaging
the
physical
world,
and
engaging
ideas.
For
Noddings,
caring
rather
than
competition
should
serve
as
the
defining
characteristic
of
education
(Noddings,
1992).
Following
Noddings’
lead,
intellectual
engagement
is
grounded
in
relationship
rather
than
competition.
It
is
born
of
the
belief
that
it
is
connection
that
more
fully
sustains
life
and
learning
that
leads
to
empowerment.
In
its
simplest
form,
this
means
that
we
7
acknowledge
that
our
learners
are
persons
with
real
lives,
real
needs,
and
real
thoughts,
and
we
model
this
awareness
so
that
they
may
acquire
it
for
use
in
their
own
classrooms
or
in
therapeutic,
counseling,
or
administrative
settings.
In
its
more
complex
form,
it
models
the
development
of
mind
in
which
the
relationship
with
diversity
and
transdisciplinary
knowledge
nurtures
one’s
personal
and
professional
growth.
Intellectual
engagement
declares
that
learning
and
the
empowerment
it
brings,
in
and
of
itself,
is
a
desirable
goal.
Teacher
and
professional
education
faculty
members
believe
that
caring
about
ideas
is
necessary
if
one
is
to
be
fully
competent.
Faced
with
a
serious
question,
the
exclusively
competitive
person
is
apt
to
be
driven
by
expediency.
One
who
practices
intellectual
engagement
will
be
inclined
to
look
for
the
subtleties
and
for
more
than
the
immediately
available
solution.
True
research‐based
practice
dictates
an
intellectual
engagement
which
is
characterized
both
by
the
sophisticated
thinking
required
for
cogent
solutions
and
by
the
valuing
of
learning
for
its
own
sake.
The
first
of
these
characteristics
requires
the
second,
and
Western’s
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program
cultivate
both.
Shared
Leadership
Each
of
the
components
above
reveal
the
Unit’s
commitment
to
preparing
educators
who
understand
their
responsibility
to
serve
as
educational
innovators
and
leaders.
It
makes
little
sense
to
promote
reflection
or
research‐based
practice
if
the
professional
lives
of
educators
do
not
permit
them
to
utilize
the
fruits
of
their
labors.
Nor
are
these
ideas
sensible
if
educators
believe
that
decision‐making
is
the
exclusive
province
of
others.
Such
views
stifle
creative
thinking
and
promote
disaffection
and
have
prompted
the
call
for
greater
shared
leadership
in
many
schools.
Although
recently
there
has
been
considerable
interest
in
this
notion,
the
idea
will
be
empty
if
educators
do
not
see
a
more
significant
role
for
themselves
than
that
of
compliant
follower
or
if
they
believe,
as
administrators,
that
they
are
expected
to
act
unilaterally
(Futrell,
2008;
Fullan,
2007;
Barth,
2004;
Futrell,
2003;
Oakes,
Quartz,
Ryan,
&
Lipton,
2000;
Fullan,
2000a).
As
active
participants
in
schools
as
candidates
and
as
certified
educational
professionals,
our
graduates
understand
the
reciprocal
nature
of
leadership.
The
National
Policy
Board
for
Educational
Administration
recently
generated
its
standards
for
educational
policy
leadership
(ISLLC
2008).
Although
these
standards
primarily
focus
on
the
activities
of
educational
leaders,
their
intent
is
to
promote
a
learning
atmosphere
that
is
fully
collaborative.
Developing
a
shared
vision,
sustaining
school
culture,
managing
resources,
collaborating
with
the
community,
behaving
ethically,
and
influencing
the
larger
political
context
are
commitments
that
must
extend
beyond
administration
if
they
are
to
be
truly
effective.
Our
candidates
and
those
enrolled
in
advanced
programs
recognize
that
a
school
lacking
these
characteristics
may
find
itself
wandering
aimlessly
from
one
real
or
imagined
problem
to
the
next;
constantly
moving
but
failing
to
progress.
They
also
understand
the
collaborative
nature
of
this
venture
and
enter
the
8
field
prepared
to
bear
their
share
of
broadly
conceived
leadership
responsibility
to
ensure
the
empowerment
of
all
learners.
Sustained
Professional
Development
Sustained
professional
development
presupposes
certain
underpinnings.
The
commitment
that
requires
freedom
of
mind,
intellectual
engagement,
and
shared
leadership
must
be
fully
functional
if
one
is
to
pursue
sustained
development,
for
without
them
there
is
no
consequential
development.
Even
more
basic,
however,
is
the
idea
that
sustained
development
assumes
pre‐existing
professional
competence.
One
cannot
continue
to
develop
something
that
does
not
already
exist.
For
future
educators,
this
base
of
competence
is
established
in
multiple
clinical
and
field
experiences.
In
incremental
fashion,
candidates
are
exposed
to
increasingly
complex,
real‐world
learning
environments,
and
their
cooperating
educational
professionals
carefully
monitor
their
ideas
and
actions
for
relevance
and
appropriateness.
In
parallel
fashion,
their
responsibilities
in
these
settings
mount
as
their
professional
confidence
and
skill
grow.
Our
teacher
and
professional
education
faculty
grasp
that
the
most
intricate
and
articulate
theory
is
for
naught
if
it
fails
to
yield
competent
practitioners,
and
such
persons
are
not
possible
without
extensive
and
varied
opportunities
to
apply
in
the
field
what
they
have
learned
in
the
classroom.
The
position
statements
of
American
Association
of
Colleges
for
Teacher
Education,
American
Association
of
School
Administrators,
Association
for
Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development,
and
the
Illinois
State
Board
of
Education
align
with
the
Unit’s
commitments
regarding
early
competence
and
ongoing
professional
growth
for
educators.
When
properly
conceived,
this
focus
has
both
pragmatic
and
theoretical
aspects.
The
narrow
view
would
suggest
that
competent
educators
think
systemically
about
their
practice
in
educational
settings
and
that
they
begin
this
in
their
earliest
field
experiences.
While
this
is
laudable
and
absolutely
necessary,
it
is
not
sufficient.
Something
similar
to
the
Professional
Learning
Community
(PLC)
model
is
required,
and
this
is
promoted
in
the
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program
(Hord,
Roussin
&
Sommers,
2009;
DuFour,
DuFour,
&
Eaker,
2007;
Hord
&
Sommers,
2007;
Hord,
1997).
Defining
characteristics
of
such
communities
include
the
collaboration
frequently
mentioned
above,
including
development
of
both
a
shared
vision
of
education
and
shared
leadership.
They
also
include
articulated
commitments
to
high
academic
achievement
and
respect
for
persons.
One
of
the
most
important
components,
however,
is
acceptance
of
the
notion
that
educators
are
more
than
mere
consumers
of
research.
Educators
at
every
level,
including
candidates,
are
generators
of
research.
This
position
coheres
well
with
the
University’s
commitment
to
research
and
creative
activity
and
to
the
Unit’s
image
of
educators
as
active
participants
rather
than
mere
passive
recipients
of
the
insights
born
of
others’
research.
Development
of
professional
dispositions
and
skills
is
inhibited
if
educators
must
continually
look
out
there
for
the
expert
with
the
answer:
professionals
share
in
the
scholarly
work
of
the
field.
9
The
call
for
such
learning
communities
is
more
than
the
quiet
expectation
that
educators
continue
to
develop
after
beginning
their
careers.
It
would
be
foolish
to
claim
that
one’s
practice
or
knowledge
base
could
not
be
enriched.
It
would
also
be
foolhardy
to
assume
that
each
candidate
left
our
program
completely
qualified.
Such
a
stance
would
conflict
with
the
notion
of
growth
to
which
the
faculty
ascribe
and
with
the
experience
of
exceptional
teachers.
While
we
expect
our
candidates
to
enter
their
first
professional
environment
committed
to
the
skills
and
dispositions
necessary
to
be
successful,
we
also
understand
that
our
work
is
foundational.
Knowledge
Informed,
critically
examined,
research‐based,
data‐driven,
and
experientially
grounded
understanding
of
learners,
content,
pedagogy,
technology,
and
the
standards
associated
with
one’s
professional
practice.
Analysis
Types:
informed
understanding
Foci:
learners;
content;
pedagogy;
technology;
standards
Basis/Sources:
critical
examination
(thoughtful
analysis,
synthesis
and
evaluation/weighing);
research
(scientific
literature);
data
(assessment);
experience
(practice)
Expanded
definition:
Within
the
context
of
the
WIU
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program,
knowledge
refers
to
informed
understanding
of
learners,
content,
pedagogy,
technology
and
the
standards
of
one’s
profession.
With
regard
to
our
candidates,
this
understanding
should
be
rooted
in
critical
examination
of
current
research
and
theory
pertaining
to
these
topics
as
well
as
the
data
derived
from
their
own
experiences
in
the
classroom.
It
is
expected
that
our
candidates
will
not
only
know
a
great
deal
about
these
topics,
it
is
also
expected
that
they
will
grasp
the
relevance
of
their
knowledge
in
each
domain
and
that
they
be
able
to
apply
it,
in
a
thoughtful
and
effective
fashion,
in
the
day‐to‐day
context
of
their
professional
practice.
Since
the
inception
of
the
normal
school,
those
who
have
prepared
educators
have
wrestled
with
how
best
to
prepare
them.
Accounts
from
the
founders
of
the
common
school
suggest
that
certain
themes
have
always
been
important
to
this
ongoing
conversation.
Then,
as
now,
the
features
included
a
thorough
knowledge
of
the
various
subjects
one
might
teach
(e.g.
content
knowledge).
It
also
included
consideration
of
how
best
to
share
that
knowledge
with
the
students
under
one’s
care
(e.g.
pedagogical
knowledge)
(Spring,
2009;
Hansen,
2008;
Darling‐Hammond
&
Bransford,
2005).
Perhaps
we
have
always
had
an
intuitive
sense
of
the
necessary
components,
but
it
is
also
possible
that
Shulman’s
1987
model
has
served
to
give
these
intuitions
palpable
form.
Shulman’s
articulation
of
the
“categories
of
the
knowledge
base,”
supported
the
10
evolution
of
the
clearer
and
more
demanding
understanding
of
teaching
as
a
profession
that
has
driven
the
standards
movement.
Specifically,
Shulman
included
the
following:
content
knowledge;
general
pedagogical
knowledge;
curriculum
knowledge;
pedagogical
content
knowledge;
knowledge
of
learners
and
their
characteristics;
knowledge
of
educational
contexts;
and
knowledge
of
educational
ends,
purposes,
and
values,
and
their
philosophical
and
historical
grounds
(Shulman,
1987,
p.
8).
Such
understanding
is
critical
regardless
of
whether
one
intends
to
teach
kindergarten
or
serve
as
a
school
administrator
or
a
school
psychologist.
Shulman’s
categories
correspond
closely
with
those
endorsed
by
our
Unit’s
faculty
members,
but
it
is
probable
that
the
same
could
be
said
of
most
education
programs.
While
all
programs
may
share
certain
similarities
and
common
beliefs,
it
is
also
undeniably
the
case
that
individual
program
emphases
differ
markedly.
Such
emphases
are
inevitably
influenced
by
the
history
of
a
program;
by
current
public
opinion;
and
by
the
identities,
education,
and
experiences
of
the
persons
who
prepare
educational
professionals
within
a
program.
Consequently,
every
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program
has
a
personality
and
this
personality
is
uniquely
visible
in
how
it
satisfies
the
requirements
of
the
knowledge
base.
What
may
well
distinguish
WIU’s
Unit
from
other
programs
is
the
transdisciplinary
approach
to
learning
endorsed
by
university
departments
and
modeled
by
our
Unit’s
faculty.
This
section
is
intended
to
reveal
the
distinctive
personality
of
the
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program
at
Western
Illinois
University
by
examining
conceptually
what
is
meant
by
understanding
learners,
content,
pedagogy,
technology
and
the
standards
of
one’s
profession.
Understanding
of
Learners
Effective
educators
must
understand
learners.
Understanding
of
this
sort
includes
recognition
of
the
relationship
between
human
development
and
learning.
Our
candidates
understand
that
educators
must
match
the
age,
background,
experiences,
and
developmental
levels
of
their
students
with
the
proposed
learning
strategies.
They
also
understand
that
the
complexity
of
their
students
rivals
that
of
disciplinary
knowledge
and
of
the
knowledge
of
learning
environments.
Faculty
members
continually
remind
our
candidates
that
students
are
multifaceted
and
that
this
requires
considerable
flexibility
on
the
part
of
the
educator
(Darling‐Hammond,
2010;
Darling‐
Hammond
&
Bransford,
2005;
Darling‐Hammond
&
MacDonald,
2000;
Clandinin,
Davies,
Hogan,
&
Kennard,
1993;
Gage
and
Berliner,
1998;
Erikson,
1980).
This
orientation
is
most
visible
in
the
functional
commitment
to
diversity
shared
by
both
the
University
and
our
Unit.
Careful
observers
recognize
that
the
face
of
the
nation
is
changing
(Villegas,
2008),
but
suggestions
about
how
best
to
respond
to
such
changes
vary
greatly.
Banks
has
aptly
captured
the
sentiments
motivating
many
political
figures.
Banks
argues
that
enthusiastically
addressing
diversity
issues
is
necessary
for
the
economic
and
political
health
of
the
nation
(2007,
2001).
Banks
rejects
as
inadequate
what
he
calls
the
contributions
and
the
additive
approaches
to
curriculum
reform.
The
former
focuses
on
heroes
and
holidays,
while
the
latter
simply
adds
new
content
or
11
units
to
a
relatively
fixed
and
inflexible
curriculum.
In
contrast,
he
recommends
movement
toward
the
transformation
and
social
action
approaches,
which
allow
learners
to
view
others’
experiences
through
the
eyes
and
voices
of
those
persons
(2009).
The
ultimate
goal
becomes
the
use
of
this
enriched
understanding
to
confront
actual
social
issues
and
better
empower
learners
(Nieto,
2008;
Nieto,
1999).
For
this
empowerment
of
learners,
candidates
and
educational
professionals
may
need
to
consider
the
most
effective
practices
for
different
groups
of
learners.
These
considerations
may
need
to
go
beyond
curricular
additions
and
instructional
repertoires
that
Banks
and
Nieto
critique
and
include
culturally
responsive
curriculum,
pedagogical
and
teaching
practices.
Within
these
practices
educators
might
involving
learners
in
the
construction
of
knowledge,
learn
more
about
building
on
learners'
interests
and
linguistic
resources,
learn
more
about
tapping
community
and
home
resources,
and
helping
learners
examine
the
curriculum
from
multiple
perspectives
(Sleeter,
2008;
Banks,
2005;
Darling‐Hammond
&
Bransford,
2005;
Villegas
&
Lucas,
2002;
Irvine,
J.
2003;
Gay,
2000;
Ladson‐Billings,
1995).
Candidates
and
all
educational
professionals
must
realize
to
better
understand
learners
they
must
be
willing
to
examine
and
understand
themselves.
The
process
of
becoming
and
sustaining
oneself
as
an
educational
professional
begins
with
an
exploration
of
one’s
own
beliefs,
ideals
and
positionality
(LaPrad,
2008;
Bullough,
Goodson
&
Gitlin,
1994).
This
is
coupled
with
an
awareness
of
the
patterns
and
beliefs
of
the
cultural
identities
one
has.
At
the
same
time
candidates
need
to
be
aware
of
and
confront
their
own
biases
and
prejudices
(Berlak,
2008;
Pollock,
2008)
and
privilege
(Wise,
2007;
McIntosh,
1988)
as
they
desire
to
become
more
cultural
competent
beings
(Ladson‐
Billings,
1995).
These
are
joined
to
the
image
of
an
evolving
and
oft
roiling
national
conception
of
what
it
means
to
be
a
citizen.
And
each
of
these
components
is
ultimately
connected
to
a
global
identification
and
outlook
needed
in
our
twenty‐first
century
(Banks,
2001).
All
together
with
these
competencies,
when
candidates
and
educational
professionals
gain
the
knowledge
of
learners
they
are
able
build
deeper
relationships
with
learns
which
better
enables
their
empowerment.
Understanding
of
Content
Our
Unit
recognizes
as
Wilson,
Floden,
&
Ferrini‐Mundy
(2001)
supported
Shulman’s
(1987)
understanding
and
research
that
educators
should
possess
deep
understanding
of
the
subject
that
they
teach.
Our
candidates
are
expected
to
exhibit
in‐depth
understanding
in
major
and
minor
areas
of
the
sort
necessary
to
“demonstrate
the
central
concepts,
tools
of
inquiry,
and
structures
of
their
disciplines,”
but
they
are
also
expected
to
understand
where
disciplinary
understanding
intersects
and
what
results
from
such
intersections.
While
there
are
always
caveats
for
approaches
that
carry
the
transdisciplinary
appellation,
such
an
orientation
is
never
an
attempt
to
avoid
the
rigors
of
disciplinary
training
within
a
single
field.
It
is
recognized
that
the
most
formidable
social
and
intellectual
problems
are
seldom
comfortably
confined
within
disciplinary
boundaries.
Moreover,
a
transdisciplinary
orientation
recognizes
that
much
of
the
most
12
interesting
work
occurs
at
the
margins
in
areas
that
defy
predictability
and
neat
categorization
(Adam
&
Allan,
1995;
Carruthers
&
Boucher,
1998).
Candidates
benefit
from
a
transdisciplinary
model
that
offers
complex
insights
into
the
lives
of
the
people
with
whom
they
interact
in
schools
and
communities
(Dunbar,
Knight,
&
Power,
1999).
Teacher
and
professional
education
faculty
members
also
realize
that
a
transdisciplinary
approach
is
not
intended
to
provide
candidates
with
broad
but
superficial
exposure
to
innumerable
topics.
In
its
courses,
the
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program
reject
cursory
coverage.
Such
cafeteria
approaches
to
understanding
are
only
capable
of
holding
one's
attention
for
a
short
time
and,
in
Whitehead's
words,
chiefly
serve
to
"inoculate"
learners
against
deeper
exploration
of
a
subject
(1967).
In
contrast,
we
hold
that
a
“less
is
more”
approach
stressing
depth
across
disciplines
holds
greater
promise
for
capturing
imagination
and
promoting
the
learning
strategies
embraced
by
Grossmen,
Schoenfeld
&
Lee
(2005).
They
explain
that
educators
must
be
able
to
“create
multiple
examples
and
representations
of
challenging
topics
that
make
the
content
assessable
to
a
wide
rage
of
learners”
(p.
201).
These
strategies
are
what
fuel
effective
teaching,
nurture
lifelong
learning,
and
empowerment.
It
is
apparent
that
ideas,
events,
and
individuals
are
connected
and
that
specific
disciplines
share
certain
themes.
Our
commitment
to
a
transdisciplinary
approach
implies
more
than
these
facile
truths.
It
speaks
of
a
method
of
knowledge
gathering,
knowledge
constructing,
and
knowledge
use
(Wineburg
&
Grossman,
2000).
It
is
difficult
to
be
a
resilient
and
responsive
educator
if
one
possesses
too
narrow
an
understanding
of
knowledge.
Such
educators
are
more
apt
to
be
overly
dependent
upon
“experts”:
persons
who
can
provide
answers
to
questions
that
one
is
uncomfortable
even
engaging.
Candidates
who
have
internalized
a
transdisciplinary
approach
to
learning
are
less
likely
to
abrogate
responsibility
for
dealing
with
their
own
real
questions,
as
they
sense
that
they
possess
the
intellectual
resources
necessary
to
resolve
them.
Understanding
of
Pedagogy
Western’s
teacher
and
professional
education
faculty
fully
comprehend
that
candidates
cannot
find
such
success
if
all
they
possess
is
content
knowledge.
Truly
effective
educators
also
command
critical
knowledge
of
planning
and
instruction.
The
complementary
and
relational
quality
seen
in
our
transdisciplinary
approach
to
knowledge
of
content
is
evident
here
as
well
(McDiarmid
&
Clevenger‐Bright,
2008;
Howard
&
Aleman,
2008;
Rosaen
&
Florio‐Ruane;
2008;
Darling‐Hammond,
et.
al.,
2005;
Belenky,
Clinchy,
Goldberger,
&
Tarule,
1986).
Understanding
of
curricular
vision;
of
lesson
planning;
of
motivational,
administrative,
or
therapeutic
strategies;
of
learning
activities;
of
classroom
management
plans;
and
of
the
designing
of
learning
environments
must
not
be
viewed
as
separate
and
distinct.
Effectiveness
necessitates
the
integration
of
assorted
components
of
knowledge
of
pedagogy.
13
For
instance,
considerable
recent
research
has
confirmed
the
central
role
of
assessment
in
effective
teaching
and
reform
efforts.
Learning
in
a
particular
subject
area
for
students
in
a
regular
classroom
or
learning
the
correct
pronunciation
of
a
particular
sound
for
a
child
with
an
articulation
difficulty
cannot
be
maximized
without
the
evidence
generated
through
appropriate
assessment
(Fullan,
2000b).
Success
entails
assessing
student
learning,
but
this
suggests
more
than
asking
whether
material
was
learned.
Assessment
clearly
includes
analyzing
the
learning
and
management
strategies
an
educator
uses.
Educators
must
assess
their
own
practice
by
asking
whether
their
approaches
actually
provide
the
desired
outcome
and
whether
other
approaches
might
better
serve
their
purposes
to
empower
learners
(Shepard,
et.
al.,
2005;
McNeil,
2000).
Understanding
of
Technology
Although
each
of
the
elements
of
understanding
of
pedagogy
is
essential,
one
of
the
most
distinctive
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program
features
is
its
emphasis
on
technological
literacy.
Properly
placing
themselves
in
history
with
a
global
perspective
requires
that
candidates
have
facility
with
emerging
technologies.
Western
possesses
an
international
reputation
for
its
work
at
the
crossroads
of
technology
and
education.
As
a
result,
our
candidates
are
expected
to
graduate
with
a
working
set
of
competencies,
and
this
list
includes
more
than
a
functional
knowledge
of
particular
equipment
and
software
programs.
Persons
underestimate
the
role
and
impact
of
technology
when
simply
referring
to
it
as
a
“tool.”
Such
a
stance
suggests
that
it
is
little
more
than
an
attachment
to
an
invariable
body
of
educational
knowledge
and
practice.
From
such
a
perspective,
technology
merely
provides
rapid
access
to
vast
pools
of
traditional
information.
In
contrast,
the
faculty
view
technology
in
much
the
same
way
as
Walker
(1999).
This
richer
understanding
views
technology
not
just
as
a
tool
but
as
a
new
literacy.
Understood
from
this
vantage
point,
technology
changes
communication
and
changes
our
perception
of
both
problems
and
solutions.
Even
if
constrained
by
administrative
edict
or
financial
exigency,
technology
will
dictate
that
educators
become
much
more
sophisticated
managers
of
information.
It
encourages
teamed
approaches
to
problem
solving
and
a
stronger
connection
between
material
learned
and
the
pressing
issues
in
everyday
life.
It
requires
facility
with
multiple
symbol
systems.
It
does
not
just
change
how
educators
do
things;
it
changes
what
we
do.
“Thus
to
be
‘literate’
on
the
Web
means
to
have
powers
of
discrimination
suitable
for
making
durable
educational
uses
of
abundant
resources”
(Weiland,
2008,
p.
1219).
None
of
this
suggests
that
technological
literacy
will
somehow
trump
text‐based
or
quantitative
illiteracies,
and
that
the
faculty
will
reject
the
useless
exercise
of
establishing
a
hierarchy
of
illiteracies
(Rafferty,
1999).
Instead,
we
appreciate
the
powerful
interconnections
between
assorted
illiteracies.
The
emergence
of
print‐text
changed
the
definition
and
scope
of
what
it
meant
to
be
an
educated
person,
similarly
14
“Hypertext”
and
“Hypermedia”
may
do
the
same
and
evolve
the
meaning
of
education
(Weiland,
2008).
Western’s
faculty
and
candidates
recognize
that
technology
will
have
as
profound
an
effect
and
that
only
adaptive
educators
must
be
able
to
take
thorough
advantage
of
it
as
tools
and
goals
in
empowering
learners.
Understanding
of
Professional
Standards
Finally,
this
integrative,
transdisciplinary
approach
is
fully
visible
in
the
other
emphases
of
the
understanding
component
of
the
Conceptual
Framework
and
in
the
Unit’s
handling
of
professional
standards.
As
educational
professionals
in
the
twenty‐first
century
we
realize
that
standards
mediate
our
profession.
Three
years
after
A
Nation
at
Risk
the
Carnegie
Task
Force
(1986)
called
for
the
creation
of
a
National
Board
for
Professional
Teaching
Standards
(McDiarmid
&
Clevnger‐Bright,
2008).
In
early
the
1990s
standards‐based
reform
movements
began
to
shape
educational
landscapes
for
both
teachers
and
their
students.
Candidates
must
recognize
and
understand
both
the
standards
that
govern
their
profession
and
the
learning
standards
appropriate
to
their
students.
Reliance
on
a
standards‐based
model
could
lead
to
assuming
that
a
capable
educator
is
one
who
has
simply
met
individual
standards
and
enables
their
students
to
do
the
same.
In
contrast,
a
true
transdisciplinary
notion
for
understanding
asks
candidates
to
examine
the
relationship
between
standards
and
to
ask
how
strengths
in
one
area
standard
may
complement
effort
in
another.
Competence
cannot
be
confused
with
a
completed
checklist.
Candidates
understand
that
content,
learning,
and
area
standards
must
operate
in
non‐hierarchical
concert
if
we,
as
educators,
are
to
experience
professional
success
and
personal
satisfaction
in
the
classroom,
in
the
resource
room,
or
in
an
administrative
setting.
Action
Professional
practice
that
embodies
the
focused
and
skillful
application
of
knowledge
and
understanding
informed
by
reflection
and
a
deep
commitment
to
learners
and
their
ultimate
empowerment
Analysis
Types:
internal
(e.g.
psychological
cognitive)
and
external
(e.g.
social
cognitive;
social
meditated
by
the
social
context)
Foci:
crafting
and
enabling
opportunities
for
learning
and
empowerment
Basis/Sources
or
Ends:
agency:
responsibility
and
granted
authority,
situational
or
contextually
dependent;
continued
action,
learning,
empowerment
Expanded
definition:
Within
the
context
of
the
WIU
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program,
action
refers
the
professional
practice
of
our
candidates
in
both
current
and
future
educational
environments.
Action
is
based
on
the
candidate’s
understood
agency,
her/his
responsibility
to
a
given
social
context
and
potentially
occurs
in
multiple
domains
ranging
from
the
cognitive
to
the
socially
mediated
(e.g.
communication;
non‐verbal,
verbal,
&
written;
psychomotor,
etc.).
Action
incorporates
and
utilizes
knowledge
and
commitment
in
the
candidate’s
profession
within
the
15
mediation
of
a
response
to
contextual
situations
that
fosters
opportunities
for
continued
learning.
As
educational
professionals,
the
authority
given
to
candidates
warrants
commitment
to
thoughtful
action
and
the
consequences
this
action
brings
to
their
learners
as
agents
of
their
empowerment.
If
our
candidates
are
to
see
themselves
as
agents
actively
involved
in
this
process
of
creating
history,
they
must
be
treated
as
individuals.
The
existentialist
Kierkegaard
railed
against
the
restrictive
scientific
thought
of
his
day
for
reducing
persons
to
interchangeable
parts
in
a
mechanistic
system
(1985).
He
contended
that
humans
must
be
viewed
as
unique
beings
rather
than
as
mere
products
of
human
nature.
Our
Unit’s
faculty
understands
that
we
cannot
prepare
educators
unless
we
first
view
candidates
as
agents
with
real
and
distinct
lives.
To
do
otherwise
is
to
risk
viewing
them
as
nothing
more
than
objects
for
transmission
of
mere
information
negating
our
Unit’s
mission
and
rendering
our
motto
as
mere
rhetoric.
Our
Unit’s
faculty
must
model
agency
for
their
candidates.
Dewey
(1922)
argued
that
choice
and
deliberation
shape
human
agency
when
required
action
must
go
beyond
established
habit
(conditioned
human
activity).
It
is
such
choice
and
deliberation
that
must
shape
the
actions
of
our
candidates
and
all
educational
professionals
in
empowering
learners.
What
is
recognized
is
that
the
professional
domain
of
each
candidate
and
educational
professional
will
shape
her/his
choices
and
deliberations.
Thus,
an
important
aspect
of
our
Unit’s
mission
is
to
provide
candidates
opportunities
for
experience
and
practice
in
these
domains.
The
actions
of
our
candidates
will
be
shaped
by
given
social
situations,
however
it
is
their
actions
in
these
given
situations
and
the
consequences
of
these
actions
that
are
keenly
important
to
us
as
educators
(Dewey,
1927).
The
consequences
of
our
educational
agents
must
lead
to
eventual
learner
empowerment.
By
recognizing
this
agency
we
must
prepare
our
candidates
to
integrate
multiple
content
areas
and
disciplines
to
foster
active
inquiry
and
interaction
in
their
field
and
clinical
experiences
and
eventually
in
their
own
classrooms
or
other
educational
settings.
At
core,
agency
is
essential
for
the
intelligent
and
efficacious
action
expected
of
a
genuine
educator.
Action
disconnected
from
agency
is
action
disconnected
from
purpose
(Dewey,
1922;
Dewey,
1927;
Mead,
1934;
Davidson,
1971;
Bandura,
2001).
Being
effective
in
this
effort
requires
that
the
candidate
bring
the
professional
knowledge
and
commitment
described
above
to
bear
on
her/his
developing
practice.
Experience
is
imperative
to
our
candidate’s
growth
and
development
within
an
apprenticeship
approach
involving
modeling,
coaching,
scaffolding
and
practicing
in
the
domain
of
firsthand
experience
and
practicum
(Lave
&
Wenger,
1998).
With
the
assistance
of
those
supervising
field
and
clinical
experiences,
our
candidates
discover
how
to
adjust
and
correct
their
style,
knowledge,
and
classroom,
school
or
district
climate
to
more
effectively
meet
the
needs
of
their
learners
or
the
needs
of
those
whom
they
serve
in
promotion
of
an
empowering
experience
by
all.
Most
people
recall
16
teachers,
educational
leaders
and
other
school
professionals
capable
of
doing
this.
These
accounts
suggest
that
it
is
not
enough
to
know
one’s
discipline
and
profession
if
one
cannot
effectively
act
and
help
others
flourish
under
her/his
charge.
Education
that
fails
to
articulate
this
significance
might
be
adequate
if
its
only
purpose
is
to
transmit
a
preconceived
set
of
beliefs
and
practices
(Gutmann,
1987).
Although
some
would
suggest
that
this
is
the
primary
purpose
of
education,
however
the
complexity
along
with
the
ebb
and
flow
of
educational
environments
often
requires
novel
solutions
to
uncharted
situations
with
multiple
participants.
As
McDonald
(1992)
notes,
real
action
occurs
in
“the
wild
triangle
of
relations”
(p.
1).
Recognizing
such
we
must
assist
our
candidates
in
honing
their
communication,
critical
thinking,
and
problem
solving
skills
in
accordance
with
their
practice.
Expectations
are
placed
on
the
Unit’s
faculty
to
model
what
we
expect
our
candidates
to
practice
in
their
field
and
clinical
experiences
and
in
their
own
classrooms,
schools
and
district
offices.
Empowerment
must
begin
with
the
socially
mediated
practices
of
our
Unit’s
faculty
inside
classrooms
and
beyond
in
all
learning
opportunities.
Reflection
Analytical
and
thoughtful
examination
of
one’s
knowledge,
understanding,
and
practice
resulting
in
more
targeted
and
refined
action
that
empowers
student
learning.
Analysis
Types:
analysis;
thoughtful
examination
Foci:
knowledge;
understanding;
practice
End(s):
a.
(immediate)
targeted
and
refined
action.
b.
(ultimate)
empowering
student
learning
Expanded
definition:
Within
the
context
of
the
WIU
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program,
reflection
refers
to
the
thoughtful
analysis
and
examination
of
the
knowledge
candidates
obtain
through
study
and
practice
during
the
course
of
their
professional
preparation.
It
is
expected
that
such
reflection
will
lead
to
a
deep
understanding
of
themselves
as
practitioners,
as
well
as
the
learners
and
the
profession
they
serve.
Ultimately,
such
reflection
is
designed
to
foster
the
achievement
of
two
critical
aims:
(a)
increasingly
targeted
and
refined
action
as
a
practicing
professional,
and
(b)
the
empowerment
of
student
learning.
Our
Unit
expects
candidates
to
be
able
to
place
themselves
in
history.
They
must
recognize
their
relationship
with
past
“human
accomplishment,”
and
that
they
flow
from
a
complex
past
containing
the
lives,
trials,
and
decisions
of
countless
human
beings.
Just
as
importantly,
they
must
also
realize
that
they
are
currently
in
history.
Rather
than
scant
passive
observers
of
history,
they
are
agents
who
actively
participate
in
creating
it
(Asante,
2001;
Asante,
1998;
Freire,
1974).
Candidates
or
educational
professionals
cannot
be
reflective,
nor
can
they
demonstrate
relevance
for
the
material
17
they
are
learning
or
practicing
if
they
lack
a
sense
of
their
own
agency
and
the
consequences
of
their
actions.
The
clarion
call
for
reflective
practitioners
is
heard
from
every
quarter.
The
idea
is
intuitively
appealing
and
parallels
similar
trends
for
the
ongoing
development
of
other
professionals
(Schon,
1983).
Its
value
has
been
touted
throughout
the
ages.
Socrates
asserted
that
the
unexamined
life
was
not
worth
living,
and
Lao
Tzu
reminded
us
that
while
clever
people
know
others,
only
the
wise
know
themselves.
Stories
abound
of
persons
whose
lives
have
come
to
ruin
because
of
an
unreflective
mindlessness.
The
case
can
easily
be
made
that
reflection
is
inherently
valuable
for
those
who
desire
to
be
effective
educators.
Nevertheless,
questions
remain
about
how
one
performs
this
task.
Since
the
1980s
reflective
practice
has
been
a
popular
familiar
concept
in
educational
literature
and
tied
to
educational
reform
movements
(Pedro,
2005;
Valli
1992;
Tabachnick
&
Zeichner,
1991;
Zeichner
&
Liston,
1987).
Dewey
(1933)
often
is
given
credit
for
theorizing
earlier
conceptions
of
and
the
value
in
reflective
practice
in
education.
For
Dewey
reflection
occurs
prior
to
intelligent
action
and
is
itself
an
act
of
thoughtful
contemplation
regarding
the
understanding
of
an
idea
or
a
given
experience
and
consequences
of
this
understanding
(Dewey,
1933).
Conceptually,
Hatton
and
Smith
(1995)
offer
a
framework
for
understanding
the
different
kinds
or
aims
of
reflection,
they
credit
Van
Manen
(1977)
for
outlining
these
aspects
or
aims
from
Habermas
(1973).
The
first
kind
or
aim,
technical
reflection,
is
an
uncritical
type
concerned
with
means
to
achieve
some
ends
and
only
the
efficacy
and
effectiveness
in
meeting
these
ends.
Dewey
would
have
considered
this
kind
of
reflection
mere
instrumentality.
The
second
kind,
practical
reflection,
is
critical
of
both
means
and
ends
and
the
assumptions
that
assist
in
constructing
them,
recognizing
that
both
are
open
to
interpretation.
The
third
kind,
critical
reflection,
is
a
combination
of
the
previous
two
that
includes
moral
and
ethical
considerations
of
the
examined
means
and
ends.
Critical
reflection
is
culturally
situated
within
historic
and
political
context
as
actions
and
their
consequences
are
scrutinized
from
multiple
perspectives
of
power
and
marginalization
(Hatton
and
Smith,
1995).
“Lifelong
learning
along
the
innovation
dimension
typically
involves
moving
beyond
existing
routines
and
often
requires
people
to
rethink
key
issues,
practices
and
even
values
in
order
to
change
what
they
are
doing”
(Hammerness,
et.
al.,
2005,
p.
361).
In
educational
domains,
as
recognized
in
the
above
quote,
reflection
lies
within
a
continuum
between
the
technical
and
critical,
specific
location
within
the
above
framework
may
be
based
on
perspective
or
situation.
Even
within
this
framework,
it
is
important
to
recognize
that
reflection
does
not
occur
in
a
vacuum.
Although
one’s
reflective
activity
may
transpire
when
one
is
alone,
it
must
occur
in
relationship.
By
definition,
reflection
requires
the
bouncing
back
of
ideas,
images,
or
feelings.
These
must
reflect
off
some
thing.
A
mirror,
in
effect,
is
required.
Questions
such
as
“What
18
am
I
doing?”
and
“How
well
am
I
doing
it?”
take
on
new
and
richer
contours
when
viewed
from
another’s
perspective.
Responses
from
other
persons
contain
critical
information,
but
they
do
not
represent
the
whole
of
reflective
resources.
Reflective
sources
must
also
encompass
original
text
material,
and
this
material
may
include
sources
that
align
with
the
stances
most
attractive
to
the
candidate
or
educator.
Some
sources,
however,
must
also
include
ideas
antithetical
to
those
of
the
candidate
or
educator.
Truly
reflective
persons
cannot
adequately
assess
their
beliefs,
comments,
knowledge,
understandings,
and
practices
by
simply
gathering
like‐minded
sentiments.
Critical
reflection
demands
that
candidates
contend
with
contrary
perspectives
and
challenge
their
beliefs.
These
sources
must
include
both
historic
and
contemporary
thought,
as
the
ability
to
place
ideas
in
their
historical
context
is
necessary
both
for
reflection
and
for
a
sense
of
agency.
Although
one
may
reflect
on
many
things,
one
central
aspect
for
our
Unit’s
program
involves
contemplating
one’s
character
and
one’s
motivations
for
entering
the
profession–an
integral
component
of
the
global
perspective
described
in
understanding
of
learners.
The
reasons
for
this
are
myriad.
A
critical
reflective
view
of
the
self
serves
to
check
errant
positions
or
as
Giroux
(1994)
calls
us
to
be
“self‐reflective
of
the
interests
and
assumptions”
(p.
36)
that
shape
our
actions
that
potentially
marginalize
those
they
intended
to
serve.
Guggenbühl‐Craig
(2009/1971)
argues
that
persons
active
in
the
helping
professions
may
have
unclear
motives
for
their
involvement.
Some
may
be
driven
by
the
desire
for
authority
or
by
a
heightened
desire
to
nurture,
even
if
such
motivations
actually
result
in
limiting
their
students’
or
their
colleagues’
agency.
Candidates
and
educational
professionals
must
examine
why
it
is
they
want
to
teach,
counsel,
lead
or
serve
in
educational
environments
and
they
must
do
this
to
ensure
that
they
do
not
directly
or
indirectly
restrict
the
life
prospects
of
those
in
their
care.
We
reflect
to
reduce
the
possibility
that
we
unintentionally
may
harm.
Educators
must
also
reflect
for
the
purpose
of
professional
self‐preservation.
Those
who
have
reflected
on
their
reasons
for
teaching,
leading
or
serving
learners
are
less
likely
to
burnout,
to
become
too
involved,
or
not
involved
enough.
It
is
more
than
this,
however,
for
the
true
essence
of
an
effective
educator
may
reside
in
this
realm.
Palmer
(1997)
maintains
that
“knowing
myself
is
as
crucial
to
good
teaching
as
knowing
my
students
and
my
subject,”
and
that
herein
“is
a
secret
hidden
in
plain
sight:
good
teaching
cannot
be
reduced
to
technique;
good
teaching
comes
from
the
identity
and
integrity
of
the
teacher”
(pp.
15‐16).
This
critical
review
of
the
self
serves
not
only
to
check
errant
motivations
but
also
one’s
welfare.
Elshtain
(1995)
warns
that
when
we
fail
to
distinguish
between
our
private
and
public
selves,
private
life
becomes
a
commodity
of
the
sort
consumed
on
talk
shows.
Fully
as
dangerous
is
the
loss
of
civic
identity
when
everything
becomes
self‐referential
and
has
significance
only
if
it
personally
matters
to
the
individual.
Candidates
in
our
program
understand
this
personal
exploration
to
be
one
aspect
of
what
is
required
for
them
to
be
fully
competent
educators.
19
Equally
important,
reflection
cannot
be
an
end
in
itself.
It
must
be
aimed
at
the
refinement
of
one’s
actions
–
“to
refine
and
improve”
one’s
educational
capacities
(Darling‐Hammond,
2008).
This
refinement
upon
assessment
might
note
shortcomings
in
one’s
commitments
or
gaps
in
knowledge
or
understanding.
Once
recognized
adjustments
can
be
made
in
future
actions
in
similar
situations
as
true
praxis
occurs
as
the
refinement
of
one’s
actions
leads
for
further
empowerment
of
one’s
learners
(Freire,
1970).
Reflection
is
but
one
piece
of
an
integrated
whole
and
cannot
stand
in
lieu
of
the
other
conceptual
values.
In
the
end,
a
union
of
commitment,
knowledge,
action,
and
reflection
are
necessary
if
our
candidates
are
to
successfully
complete
their
program
and
the
future
empowerment
of
the
learners
under
their
charge.
The
combinations
of
the
four
values
are
iterative
and
foster
a
generative
tension
to
promote
empowerment
our
final
value.
Empowerment
The
creation
of
a
professional
community
wherein
candidates
develop
the
capability,
confidence,
efficacy,
and
sense
of
authority,
enabling
them
to
create
a
community
that
positively
transforms
the
lives
and
actions
of
all
learners
and
engages
them
in
attaining
their
full
potential.
Analysis
Types:
practice;
being
Foci:
learners;
pedagogy;
action;
guidance
(with
an
ironic
understanding);
trust
End(s):
a.
(immediate)
refined
action
&
freedom
(autonomy;
creativity;
novelty;
possibility)
within
reason
for
student
learning.
b.
(ultimate)
liberation;
human
flourishing;
solidarity
Expanded
definition:
Within
the
context
of
the
WIU
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program,
empowerment
is
a
process
with
an
end
in
view
(liberation;
human
flourishing;
solidarity)
where
power
is
distributed
or
shared
to
meet
this
end
that
evolves
with
time.
Capability
requires
knowledge,
skills,
and
action
(application
&
practice).
Confidence
requires
knowledge,
experience,
and
reflection.
Efficacy
requires
knowledge,
skills
and
reflective
action.
Authority
requires
the
acceptance
and
recognition
of
power
and
the
moral
understanding
for
having
said
power
(its
public
interest).
Community
is
a
public
interest
that
requires
a
common
purpose
(end)
mediated
through
communication
and
independent
and
interdependent
action
towards
that
end.
What
is
meant
by
empowerment?
True
empowerment
has
as
Greene
(1988)
states,
“an
emancipatory
possibility
of
relevance
for
an
education
in
and
for
freedom”
(p.
133).
We
must
be
clear
in
our
convictions
here
that,
within
this
practice
(means)
with
this
aim
(end),
empowerment
assumes
either
the
sharing
of
agency
or
power
or
a
transfer
of
power
or
agency
within
and
educational
domain
between
the
educator
and
her
or
his
learners.
However
we
may
question
whether
power
and
agency
are
interchangeable
even
while
they
are
related.
Cooper
(2003)
warns
educators
“who
do
not
recognize
the
20
power
they
possess
are
likely
to
abuse
it
or
fail
to
maximize
it
for
their
students’
benefit”
(p.
104).
The
extremes
of
the
abuse
of
power
may
become
the
oppression
that
Freire
(1970)
challenged.
The
idea
of
oppression
has
dark
sorted
images,
connected
to
terms
like
hegemony.
Entwhistle
(1979)
cites
Gramsci
when
he
defines
hegemony
as
the
subjugation
of
others
by
intellectual
and
moral
persuasion,
not
by
physical
coercion.
Sadly
we
may
conjure
our
own
educational
experiences
when
this
type
of
persuasion
occurred.
As
Greene
(1988)
warns,
“persuasion
is
often
so
quiet,
so
seductive,
so
distinguished
that
it
renders
young
people
acquiescent
to
power
without
their
realizing
it.
The
persuasion
becomes
most
effective
when
the
method
used
obscures
what
is
happening
in
the
learners’
minds”
(p.
133).
Shor
(1992)
described
perhaps
disempowering
educational
experiences
as
ones
that
left
learners
(or
teachers,
or
leaders,
or
broadly
educational
professionals)
with
negative
emotions
of
“self
doubt,
hostility,
resentment,
boredom,
indignation,
cynicism,
disrespect,
frustration,
and
desire
to
escape”
(p.
23).
These
types
of
emotions
Shor
explained
may
potentially
lead
to
“anti‐intellectualism”
or
as
Dewey
(1916)
would
call
this
“miseducative,”
regardless
we
can
recognize
that
this
type
of
affective
domain
is
undesirable
in
any
educational
situation.
So
an
empowering
learning
or
education
would
be
the
antithesis
of
the
above.
Or
as
hooks
(1994)
envisions
an
education,
“to
open
our
mind
and
hearts
so
that
we
can
know
beyond
the
boundaries
of
what
is
acceptable,
so
that
we
can
think
and
rethink,
so
that
we
can
create
new
visions
.
.
.
enables
transgressions‐‐a
movement
against
and
beyond
boundaries.
It
is
that
movement
which
makes
education
the
practice
of
freedom”
(p.
12).
Bartolome
(2009)
would
identify
this
as
a
“humanizing
pedagogy”
(p.
344)
or
as
Greene
(1988)
explained
there
that
there
exists
a
type
of
learning
where
learners
(and
all
people)
“may
become
empowered
to
engage
in
some
sort
of
praxis,
engaged
enough
to
name
the
obstacles
in
the
way
of
their
shared
becoming.”
These
obstacles
and
forms
of
oppression
“may
be
identified
with
prejudices,
rigidities,
suppressed
violence:
All
these
can
petrify
or
impinge
on
the
sphere
of
freedom”
(p.
133).
For
empowerment
in
learning,
Grant
and
Vonzell
(2008)
identify
that
the
agency
of
students
is
an
imperative,
yet
all
to
often
this
agency
ignored.
However,
true
empowerment
in
learning
will
create
“possibilities
for
students
to
negotiate
the
forces
that
work
to
regulate
their
positionalities”
(p.
191).
These
authors
recognize
that
when
positionality
and
agency
are
linked,
deeper
questions
can
be
raised
(e.g.
“What
possibilities
can
be
created
to
maintain
or
access
that
would
improve
the
quality
of
life
given
the
way
we
are
situated
within
the
matrices
of
positionalities
by
those
with
the
influence
to
shape
public
sentiment?”)
(p.
191‐2).
Questions
such
as
this
are
the
means
and
ends
of
learning
for
empowerment.
Where
agency
becomes
“a
form
of
intellectual
labor
and
concrete
social
practice—in
short,
a
critical
praxis”
(McLaren
&
Farahmandapur,
2001,
p.
149).
21
Shor
(1992)
explains
learning
for
empowerment
as
“a
critical‐democratic
pedagogy
for
self
and
social
change
.
.
.
it
approaches
individual
growth
as
an
active,
cooperative,
and
social
process,
because
the
self
and
society
create
each
other
.
.
.
the
goals
of
this
pedagogy
are
to
relate
personal
growth
to
public
life,
by
developing
strong
skills,
academic
knowledge,
habits
of
inquiry,
and
critical
curiosity
about
society,
power,
inequality,
and
change
”
(p.
15).
Giroux
(1988)
describes
empowerment
for
learning
as
educating
students
“to
fight
for
the
quality
of
life
in
which
all
human
beings
benefit
.
.
.
Schools
need
to
be
defended,
as
an
important
public
service
that
educates
students
to
be
critical
citizens
who
can
think,
challenge,
take
risks,
and
believe
that
their
actions
will
make
a
difference
in
the
larger
society”
(p.
214).
McLaren
(1989)
explains
that
this
type
of
learning
will
“broaden
their
understanding
of
themselves,
the
world,
and
the
possibilities
for
transforming
the
taken‐for‐granted
assumptions
regarding
the
way
we
live”
(p.
186).
Banks
(1991)
explains
that
the
type
of
learning
“to
empower
students
must
be
transformative
in
nature
and
help
students
to
develop
the
knowledge,
skills,
and
values
needed
to
become
social
critics
who
can
make
reflective
decisions
and
implement
their
decisions
in
effective
personal,
social,
political,
and
economic
action”
(p.
131).
As
Greene
(1988)
explained
then
“Power
may
be
thought
of,
then
as
“empowerment,”
a
condition
of
possibility
for
human
and
political
life
and,
yes,
for
education
as
well.
But
spaces
have
to
be
opened
in
the
schools
and
around
the
schools;
the
windows
have
to
let
in
the
fresh
air”
(p
.134).
In
opening
up
these
spaces
for
learning
for
empowerment
participation
is
imperative.
Shor
(1992)
identifies
that
Dewey
(1916)
understood
this
as
he
explained
“participation
is
democratic
when
students
construct
purposes
and
meanings.
This
is
essential
behavior
for
citizens
in
a
free
society.
Dewey
defined
a
slave
as
someone
who
carried
out
the
intentions
of
another
person,
who
was
prevented
from
framing
her
or
his
own
intentions.
To
be
a
thinking
citizen
in
a
democracy,
Dewey
maintained,
a
person
had
to
take
part
in
making
meaning,
articulating
purpose,
carrying
out
plans,
and
evaluating
results”
(p.
18).
These
everlasting
results
are
true
empowerment,
the
aim
of
learning
in
and
for
our
democracy.
A
dream?
A
work
in
progress?
Aronowitz
(1998)
nicely
introduced
Freire’s
ideas
and
beliefs
describing
him
as
a
person
who
“aligns
himself
with
those
who
still
dream
and
keep
alive
hope
for
a
world
without
exploitation,
inequality,
and
cultural
enslavement
.
.
.
Freire’s
belief
in
the
emancipation
of
men
and
women
is
rooted
in
an
“existential”
commitment
to
an
ethical
ideal”
(p.
7).
Freire
(1998)
explains
those
who
empower
take
the
“radical
stance
on
the
defense
of
the
legitimist
interests
of
the
human
person
.
.
.
the
human
person
is
the
maker
of
history
and
is
one
made
by
history
.
.
.
As
ethical
beings
who
in
their
ethicality
are
capable
of
being
unethical,
of
transgressing
the
ethical
code
indispensible
for
human
beings
.
.
.
I
am
a
“conditioned”
being,
capable
of
going
beyond
my
own
conditioning.
The
place
upon
which
a
new
22
rebellion
should
be
built
is
not
the
ethics
of
the
market
place
with
its
crass
insensitivity
to
the
voice
of
genuine
humanity
but
the
ethics
of
universal
aspiration.
The
ethics
of
human
solidarity”
(115‐6).
The
learning
for
empowerment.
Conclusion
Western
Illinois
University’s
Teacher
and
Professional
Education
Program
is
a
palpable
example
of
conscious
evolution
at
work.
In
its
self‐definition,
it
has
sought
an
amalgam
that
respects
the
history
of
the
institution
and
its
stated
mission.
Western’s
program
connects
these
with
the
education
faculty’s
diverse
professional
experiences,
with
our
most
sapient
thinking
about
effective
preparation,
with
an
emerging
conception
of
professional
standards,
and
with
rich
and
varied
field
experiences.
As
virtually
every
observer
realizes,
the
professional
landscape
for
educators
is
changing
rapidly
and
dramatically.
It
is
conceivable
that
our
Unit
might
be
resistant
to
these
unexpected
developments.
Such
a
stance
results,
however,
in
a
sense
of
being
buffeted
by
forces
outside
oneself.
Within
such
a
perspective,
programs
and
people
seemingly
would
be
forced
“against
their
will”
to
adapt
to
a
chaotic
and
unstable
world,
and
their
response
might
well
be
resignation
and
resentment.
In
contrast,
our
Unit’s
faculty
has
chosen
to
capitalize
on
these
changes
and
on
the
uncertainty.
This
characteristic
is
apparent
in
the
continuous
evaluation
and
revision
performed
by
the
undergraduate
and
advanced
programs
within
our
Unit.
We
do
not
just
respond
to
conditions
and
the
environment
in
which
we
find
ourselves;
we
consciously
exhibit
the
creative
imagination
and
wisdom
we
expect
of
our
candidates.
With
aplomb
and
anticipation,
we
engage
the
ambiguities
of
the
present
to
sculpt
intelligent
ends
and
means
in
our
primary
task
of
preparing
knowledgeable,
reflective,
agents
committed
to
empowering
all
learners.
References
Adam,
B.,
&
Allan,
S.
(Eds.).
(1995).
Theorizing
culture:
An
interdisciplinary
critique
after
postmodernism.
New
York:
New
York
University
Press.
Adams,
J.
Q.
&
Welsch,
J.
(1999).
Cultural
diversity:
Curriculum,
classroom,
and
climate.
Macomb,
IL:
Illinois
Staff
and
Curriculum
Developers
Association.
Akerson,
V.,
&
Flanigan,
J.
(2000).
Preparing
preservice
teachers
to
use
an
interdisciplinary
approach
to
science
and
language
arts
instruction.
Journal
of
Science
Teacher
Education,
11(4),
345‐62.
Apple,
M.
W.
(1996).
Cultural
politics
and
education.
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Apple,
M.
W.
(2004).
Creating
Difference:
Neo‐Liberalism,
Neo‐Conservatism
and
the
Politics
of
Educational
Reform.
Educational
Policy,
18(1),
12‐44.
23
Asante,
M.
(1998).
The
Afrocentric
idea.
Philadelphia:
Temple
University
Press.
Asante,
M.
(2001).
African
American
history:
A
journey
of
liberation.
Maywood,
NJ:
Peoples
Publishing
Group,
Inc.
Ayers,
W.
(2000).
A
simple
justice:
The
challenge
of
small
schools.
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Ayers,
W.
(2004).
Teaching
Toward
Freedom:
Moral
Commitment
and
Ethical
Action
in
the
Classroom.
Boston:
Beacon
Press.
Bandura,
A.
(2001).
Social
cognitive
theory:
An
agentic
perspective.
Annual
Review
of
Psychology,
52,
1‐26.
Banks,
J.
(2001).
Citizenship
education
and
diversity:
Implications
for
teacher
education.
Journal
of
Teacher
Education,
52(1),
5‐16.
Banks,
J.
(2005).
Cultural
diversity
and
education:
Foundations,
curriculum,
and
teaching,
(6th
ed.).
Boston:
Allyn
and
Bacon.
Banks,
J.
(2007).
Educating
citizens
in
a
multicultural
society
(2nd
ed.).
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Banks,
J.
(2009).
Teaching
strategies
for
ethnic
studies
(8th
ed.).
Boston:
Allyn
and
Bacon.
Barber,
B.
(1998a).
A
passion
for
democracy:
American
essays.
Princeton,
NJ:
Princeton
University
Press.
Barber,
B.
(1998b).
A
place
for
us:
How
to
make
society
civil
and
democracy
strong.
New
York:
Hill
and
Wang.
Barr,
R.
(1995).
Hope
at
last
for
at‐risk
youth.
Boston:
Allyn
and
Bacon.
Barth,
R.
(2004).
Learning
By
Heart.
San
Francisco:
Jossey‐Bass.
Bartolome,
M.
(2009).
Beyond
the
methods
fetish:
Toward
a
humanizing
pedagogy.
In
The
critical
pedagogy
reader.
Darder,
A.,
Baltodano,
M.,
&
Torres,
R.
(Eds.).,
New
York:
Routledge.
Belenky,
M..,
Clinchy,
B.,
Goldberger,
N.,
&
Tarule,
J.
(1986).
Women’s
ways
of
knowing:
The
development
of
self,
voice,
and
mind.
New
York:
Basic
Books,
Inc.
Berlak,
A.
(2008).
Racial
and
cultural
competence
and
the
adaptive
unconscious.
In
Building
Racial
and
Cultural
Competence
in
the
Classroom.
Teel,
K.
&
Obidah,
J.
(Eds).,
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Brogan,
B.
&
Brogan,
W.
(1999).
The
formation
of
character:
A
necessary
goal
for
success
in
education.
The
Educational
Forum,
63(4),
348‐355.
Bullough,
R.,
Goodson,
I.,
&
Gitlin,
A.
(1994).
Becoming
a
student
of
teaching:
Methodologies
for
exploring
self
and
practice.
New
York:
Garland.
Calderhead,
J.
(1989)
Reflective
teaching
and
teacher
education,
Teaching
and
Teacher
24
Education,
5(1),
43–51.
Carruthers,
P.,
&
Boucher,
J.
(Eds.).
(1998).
Language
and
thought:
Interdisciplinary
themes.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Clandinin,
D.,
Davies,
A.,
Hogan,
P.,
&
Kennard,
B.
(Eds.)
(1993).
Learning
to
teach,
teaching
to
learn.
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Cochran‐Smith,
M.,
Feiman‐Nemser,
S.
&
McIntyre,
D.
(Eds.)
(2008)
Handbook
of
research
on
teacher
education:
Enduring
questions
in
changing
contexts.
New
York:
Routledge.
Conchas,
G.
&
Noguera,
P.
(2006).
The
Color
of
Success:
Race
And
High‐achieving
Urban
Youth,
New
York:
Teacher
College
Press.
Cooper,
C.W.
(2003).
The
detrimental
impact
of
teacher
bias:
Lessons
learned
from
the
standpoint
of
African
American
mother.
Teacher
Education
Quarterly,
30(2),
101‐
116.
Cose,
E.
(1997).
Color‐blind:
Seeing
beyond
race
in
a
race‐obsessed
world.
New
York:
Harper
Collins
Publishing.
Council
of
Chief
State
School
Officers
(CCSSO).
(2000).
Collaborative
professional
development
for
school
leaders.
Washington,
DC.
Crockett,
J.
(1999).
The
least
restrictive
environment:
Its
origins
and
interpretations
in
special
education.
Mahwah,
NJ:
L.
Erlbaum
Associates.
Cunningham,
P.,
&
Allington,
R.
(1999).
Classrooms
that
work:
They
can
all
read
and
write.
New
York:
Longman.
Darder,
A.,
Baltodano,
M.,
&
Torres,
R.
(Eds.).
(2009)
The
critical
pedagogy
reader,
New
York:
Routledge.
Darling‐Hammond,
L.
(2010).
The
Flat
World
and
Education:
How
America's
Commitment
to
Equity
Will
Determine
Our
Future
(Multicultural
Education).
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Davidson,
D.
(1971).
Agency.
In
Agent,
action,
and
reason.
Binkley,
R.
Bronaugh,
R.
&
Marras,
A.
(Eds.).
Toronto:
University
of
Toronto
Press.
Delpit,
L.
(1995).
Other
people's
children:
Cultural
conflict
in
the
classroom.
New
York:
W.W.
Norton.
Dewey,
J.
(1916).
Democracy
and
education.
New
York:
Macmillan.
Dewey,
J.
(1922/1957)
Human
nature
and
conduct:
An
introduction
to
social
psychologyNew
York:
The
Modern
Library.
Dewey,
J.
(1933).
How
we
think:
A
restatement
of
reflective
thinking
to
the
educative
process.
Boston:
Heath.
Dewey,
J.
(1934/1986).
The
need
for
a
philosophy
of
education?
In
John
Dewey:
The
Later
Works,
1925‐1953:
1933‐1934,
Vol.
9,
Boydston,
A.
Ed.,
Carbondale,
IL:
25
Southern
Illinois
University
Press,
194‐212.
Dewey,
J.
(1937/1988).
Democracy
and
educational
administration.
Planning
and
Changing,
22(3‐4),
134‐140.
Reprinted
in
John
Dewey:
The
Later
Works,
1925‐1953,
Vol.
11,
Boydston,
A.,
Handlin,
O.
&
Handlin,
L.
Eds.,
Carbondale,
IL:
Southern
Illinois
University
Press,
218‐225.
Duffy,
F.
(2006).
Power,
politics,
and
ethics
in
school
districts:
Dynamic
leadership
for
systemic
change.
Series:
no.
6:
Lanham,
Md:
Rowman
&
Littlefield
Education.
DuFour
R.
DuFour,
R.
&
Eaker,
R.
(2008).
Revisiting
professional
learning
communities
at
work:
New
insights
for
improving
schools.
Bloomington,
IN:
Solution
Tree.
Dunbar,
R.,
Knight,
C.,
&
Power,
C.
(Eds.).
(1999).
The
evolution
of
culture:
An
interdisciplinary
view.
New
Brunswick,
NJ:
Rutgers
University
Press.
Elshtain,
J.
(1995).
Democracy
on
trial.
New
York:
Basic
Books.
Flowers,
N.,
Mertens,
S.,
&
Mulhall,
P.
(2000).
What
makes
interdisciplinary
teams
effective?
Research
on
middle
school
renewal.
Middle
School
Journal,
31(4),
53‐56.
Freire,
P.
(1970/1994).
Pedagogy
of
the
oppressed.
(M.
Ramos,
Trans.).
New
York:
The
Continuum
Publishing
Company.
Freire,
P.
(1973/1982).
Education
for
critical
consciousness.
New
York:
Continuum.
Freire,
P.
(1998).
Pedagogy
of
freedom:
Ethics,
democracy,
and
civic
courage.
New
York:
Rowman&Littlefield.
Fullan,
M.
(2007).
Leading
in
a
Culture
of
Change.
San
Francisco:
Jossey‐Bass.
Fullan,
M.
(2000a).
The
return
of
large‐scale
reform.
Journal
of
Educational
Change,
1(1),
1‐23.
Fullan,
M.
(2000b).
The
three
stories
of
education
reform.
Phi
Delta
Kappan,
81(8),
581‐
584.
Futrell,
M.
(2003).
Teaching
Tomorrow's
Citizens
Today:
The
Need
for
More
Highly
Qualified
Teachers.
Teacher
Education
and
Practice,
16(4),
355‐369.
Futrell,
M.
(2008).
Changing
the
paradigm:
Preparing
teacher
educators
and
teachers
for
the
twenty‐first
century.
In
Handbook
of
research
on
teacher
education:
Enduring
questions
in
changing
contexts.
Cochran‐Smith,
M.,
Feiman‐Nemser,
S.
&
McIntyre,
D.
(Eds.).
New
York:
Routledge,
534‐539.
Gage,
N.
&
Berliner,
D.
(1998).
Educational
psychology
(6th
ed.).
New
York:
Houghton.
Gay,
G.
(2000).
Culturally
responsive
teaching.
New
York:
Teachers
College.
Giroux,
H.
(1994).
Teachers
public
life
and
curricular
reform.
Peabody
journal
of
education.
69(3),
35‐47.
Greene,
M.
(1988).
The
dialectic
of
freedom.
New
York:
Teachers
College.
26
Greene,
M.
(1995).
Releasing
the
imagination:
Essays
on
education,
the
arts,
and
social
change.
San
Francisco:
Jossey‐Bass.
Guggenbühl‐Craig,
A.
(1976).
Power
in
the
helping
professions.
Zurich:
Spring
Publications.
Gutmann,
A.
(1987).
Democratic
education.
Princeton,
NJ:
Princeton
University
Press.
Habermas,
J.
(1973).
Knowledge
and
Human
Interests.
London:
Heinemann.
Hansen,
D.
(Ed).
(2007).
Ethical
visions
of
education:
philosophies
in
practice.
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Hatton,
N.
&
Smith,
D.
(1995)
Reflection
in
teacher
education:
towards
Definition
and
implementation,
Teaching
and
Teacher
Education,
11(1),
33‐49.
Haydon,
G.
(1997).
Teaching
about
values:
A
new
approach.
London:
Cassell
Publishers.
Hord,
S.
(1997).
Professional
learning
communities:
Communities
of
continuous
inquiry
and
improvement.
Austin:
Southwest
Educational
Development
Laboratory.
Hord,
S.
&
Sommers,
W.
(2007).
Leading
Professional
Learning
Communities:
Voices
From
Research
and
Practice.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Corwin
Press.
Hord,
S.,
Roussin,
J.
&
Sommers,
W.
(2009).
Guiding
professional
learning
communities:
Inspiration,
challenge,
surprise,
and
meaning.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Corwin
Press.
Howard,
G.
(1999).
We
can’t
teach
what
we
don’t
know:
White
teachers,
multiracial
schools.
New
York:
Teachers
College.
Hursh,
S.
(1927).
History
of
the
Western
Illinois
State
Teachers
College:
First
twenty‐five
years.
Western
Illinois
State
Teachers
College
Quarterly,
6(4).
Irvine,
J.
(2003).
Educating
teachers
for
diversity:
Seeing
with
a
cultural
eye.
New
York:
Teachers
College.
Katz,
M.,
Noddings,
N.,
&
Strike,
K.
(Eds.).
(1999).
Justice
and
caring:
The
search
for
common
ground
in
education.
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Kierkegaard,
S.
(1985).
Fear
and
trembling.
(A.
Hannay,
Trans.).
New
York:
Penguin.
Kozol,
J.
(1992).
Savage
inequalities:
Children
in
America’s
schools.
New
York:
Harper.
Kretzmann,
J.,
&
McKnight,
J.
(1993).
Building
communities
from
the
inside
out:
A
path
toward
finding
and
mobilizing
a
community's
assets.
Evanston,
IL:
Center
for
Urban
Affairs
and
Policy
Research,
Northwestern
University.
Ladson‐Billings,
G.
(1995).
Culturally
Relevant
Teaching.
Theory
into
Practice,
34
(3).
159‐165.
LaPrad,
J.
(2008).
Contingency,
Irony,
and
Solidarity:
A
Moral
Imperative
of
Multicultural
Education
in
Dealing
with
Diversity:
The
Anthology
(2nd
Edition).
Adams,
J.Q.
and
Strother‐Adams,
P.,
(Eds.).
Kendall/Hunt
Publishing
Company,
Dubuque
Iowa.
Larson,
C.,
&
Ovando,
C.
(2001).
The
color
of
bureaucracy:
The
politics
of
equity
in
27
multicultural
school
communities.
Belmont,
CA:
Wadsworth.
Lave,
J.,
&
Wenger,
E.
(1998).
Situated
learning:
Legitimate
peripheral
participation.
New
York:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Lee,
G.
(Ed.).
(1961).
Crusade
against
ignorance:
Thomas
Jefferson
on
education.
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Lemings,
J.
(1993).
Synthesis
of
research:
In
search
of
effective
character
education.
Educational
Leadership,
51(3),
63‐71.
Liston,
D.
&
Zeichner,
K.
(1990)
Reflective
teaching
in
action
research
in
pre‐service
teacher
education,
Journal
of
Education
for
Teaching,
16(3),
235–249.
Maggio,
R.
(1997).
Talking
about
people:
A
guide
to
fair
and
accurate
language.
Phoenix,
AZ:
Oryx
Press.
Marcuse,
H.
(1964).
One
dimensional
man:
Studies
in
the
ideology
of
advanced
industrial
society.
Boston:
Beacon
Press.
Maxcy,
S.
(2002).
Ethical
school
leadership.
Lanham,
MD:
Scarecrow
Press.
McIntosh,
P.
(1988).
White
privilege
and
male
privilege:
A
personal
account
of
coming
to
see
correspondences
through
work
in
Women’s
Studies,
Working
Paper
No.
189.
Wellsey,
MA:
Center
for
Research
on
Women,
Wellsley
College.
McLaren,
P.
&
Farahmandapur,
R.
(2001).
Teaching
against
globalism
and
the
new
imperialism:
Toward
a
revolutionary
pedagogy.
Journal
of
Teacher
Education.
52(2),
136‐150.
McNeil,
L.
(2000).
Contradictions
of
school
reform:
Educational
costs
of
standardized
testing.
New
York:
Routledge.
Mead,
G.
H.
(1934).
Mind,
self,
and
society:
From
the
standpoint
of
a
social
behaviorist.
Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press.
Meier,
D.
(2003).
In
Schools
We
Trust:
Creating
Communities
of
Learning
in
an
Era
of
Testing
and
Standardization.
Boston:
Beacon
Press.
Merrow,
J.
(2001).
Choosing
excellence:
"Good
enough"
schools
are
not
good
enough.
Lanham,
MD:
Scarecrow
Press.
Mill,
J.S.
(1984).
Inaugural
address
delivered
to
the
University
of
St.
Andrews.
Essays
on
equality,
law,
and
education
(J.
Robson,
Trans.).
Toronto:
University
of
Toronto.
Murray,
C.
&
Hernstein,
R.
(1994).
The
bell
curve.
New
York:
Free
Press.
Nieto,
S.
(1999).
The
light
in
their
eyes:
Creating
multicultural
learning
communities.
New
York:
Teachers
College.
Nieto,
S.
(2008).
Affirming
diversity:
The
sociopolitical
context
for
multicultural
education.
(5th
Ed.).
New
York:
Longman.
28
Noddings,
N.
(1992).
The
challenge
to
care
in
schools.
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Noddings,
N.
(2003/1984).
Caring:
A
Feminine
Approach
to
Ethics
and
Moral
Education,
(2nd
Ed).
Berkeley,
CA:
University
of
California
Press.
Noguera,
P.
(2003).
City
Schools
and
the
American
Dream:
Reclaiming
the
Promise
of
Public
Education.
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Oakes,
J.,
Quartz,
K.,
Ryan,
S.,
&
Lipton,
M.
(2000).
Becoming
good
American
schools:
The
struggle
for
civic
virtue
in
education
reform.
New
York:
Jossey‐Bass.
Ottesen,
E.
(2007).
Reflection
in
teacher
education.
Reflective
Practice.
8(1),
31‐46.
Palmer,
P.
(1997).
The
heart
of
a
teacher:
Identity
and
integrity
in
teaching.
Change,
29(6),
15‐21.
Pedro,
J.
(2005).
Reflection
in
teacher
education:
exploring
pre‐service
teachers’
meanings
of
reflective
practice.
Reflective
Practice,
(6)1,
49–66.
Plato.
(1961).
Great
dialogues
of
Plato.
(W.
Rouse,
Trans.).
New
York:
The
New
American
Library.
Pollock,
M.
(Ed.).
(2008).
Everyday
antiracism:
Getting
real
about
race
in
school.
New
York:
New
Press.
Rafferty,
C.
(1999).
Literacy
in
the
information
age.
Educational
Leadership,
57(2),
22‐
25.
Resnick,
L.
(1999).
From
aptitude
to
effort.
American
Educator,
23(1),
14‐17.
Rosenblum,
K.,
&
Travis,
T.
(Eds.).
(2002).
The
meaning
of
difference:
American
constructions
of
race,
sex
and
gender,
social
class,
and
sexual
orientation
(3rd
Ed.).
New
York:
McGraw‐Hill.
Sacks,
P.
(1999).
Standardized
minds
:
The
high
price
of
America's
testing
culture
and
what
we
can
do
to
change
it.
Cambridge,
MA:
Perseus
Books.
Samuels,
B.,
Ahsan,
N.,
&
Garcia,
J.
(1995).
Know
your
community:
A
step‐by‐step
guide
to
community
needs
and
resources
assessment.
Chicago:
Family
Resource
Coalition.
Scheurich,
J.
(1998).
Highly
successful
and
loving
public
elementary
schools
populated
mainly
by
low‐SES
children
of
color:
Core
beliefs
and
characteristics.
Urban
Educator,
33(4),
451‐491.
Shaheen,
J.
(1997).
Arab
and
Muslim
stereotyping
in
American
popular
culture.
Washington,
DC:
Georgetown
University
Center
For
Muslim‐Christian
Understanding.
Shulman,
L.
(1987).
Knowledge
and
teaching:
Foundations
for
the
new
reform.
Harvard
Educational
Review,
57(1),
1‐22.
Sizer,
T.
(1996).
Horace's
hope:
What
works
for
the
American
high
school.
Boston:
Houghton
Mifflin.
29
Sizer,
T.
(2004).
The
Red
Pencil:
Convictions
from
Experience
in
Education.
New
Haven,
CT:
Yale
University
Press.
Sleetter,
C.
(2008).
Preparing
White
teachers
for
diverse
students.
In
Handbook
of
research
on
teacher
education:
Enduring
questions
in
changing
contexts.
Cochran‐
Smith,
M.,
Feiman‐Nemser,
S.
&
McIntyre,
D.
(Eds.).
New
York:
Routledge,
559‐582.
Spring,
J.
(2005).
Conflict
of
Interests,
5th
ed.
New
York:
McGraw‐Hill.
Spring,
J.
(2009).
American
education
(14th
ed.).
New
York:
McGraw
Hill.
Tabachnick,
B.
&
Zeichner,
K.
(Eds).
(1991).
Issues
and
practices
in
inquiry‐oriented
teacher
education.
New
York:
The
Falmer
Press.
Takaki,
R.
(1993).
A
different
mirror.
Boston:
Little,
Brown,
and
Company.
Takaki,
R.
(1987).
Strangers
from
a
different
shore:
A
history
of
Asian‐Americans.
New
York:
Penguin
Books.
The
National
Commission
on
Teaching
&
America’s
Future.
(1996).
What
matters
most:
Teaching
for
America’s
future.
Woodbridge,
VA:
Author.
Valdes,
G.
(1996).
Con
Respeto:
Bridging
the
distances
between
culturally
diverse
families
and
schools.
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Valli,
L.
(1990).
Moral
approaches
to
reflective
practice.
In
Encouraging
reflective
practice
in
education.
Cliff,
R.,
Houston
W.
R.,
&
Pugach,
M.
(Eds).
New
York:
Teachers
College,
39–56.
Valli,
L.
(1992).
Reflective
teacher
education:
Cases
and
critiques.
Albany,
NY:
State
University
of
New
York.
Valli,
L.
(1993).
Reconsidering
technical
and
reflective
concepts
in
teacher
education,
Action
in
Teacher
Education,
15(2),
35–44.
Van
Manen,
M.
(1977).
Linking
Ways
of
Knowing
with
Ways
of
Being
Practical.
Curriculum
Inquiry,
6,
205‐28.
Villegas,
A.M.
&
Lucas,
T.
(2002).
Educating
culturally
responsive
teachers.
Albany,
NY:
State
University
of
New
York.
Vygotsky,
L.
(1978).
Mind
in
society:
The
development
of
higher
psychological
processes.
Cambridge:
Harvard
University.
Walker,
D.
(1999).
Technology
and
literacy:
Raising
the
bar.
Educational
Leadership,
57(2),
18‐21.
Wertsch,
J.
V.
(1998).
Mind
as
action.
New
York:
Oxford
University
Press.
Western
Illinois
University.
(2009).
Western
Illinois
University
catalogue,
2009‐2010.
Macomb,
IL:
Western
Illinois
University
Press.
Whitehead,
A.N.
(1967).
The
aims
of
education
and
other
essays.
New
York:
The
Free
Press.
30
Wilson,
S.M.,
Floden,
R.
&
Ferrini‐Mundy,
J.
(2001).
Teacher
education
research:
Current
knowledge,
recommendations,
and
priorities
for
the
future.
Seattle,
WA:
Center
for
the
Study
of
Teaching,
University
of
Washington.
Wineburg,
S.,
&
Grossman,
P.
(Eds.).
(2000).
Interdisciplinary
curriculum:
Challenges
to
implementation.
New
York:
Teachers
College.
Wise,
T.
(2007).
White
like
me:
Reflections
on
race
from
a
privileged
son.
New
York:
Soft
Skull
Press.
Wise,
T.
(2010).
Colorblind:
The
Rise
of
Post‐Racial
Politics
and
the
Retreat
from
Racial
Equity.
San
Francisco:
City
Lights
Books.
Zeichner,
K.
(1983).
Alternative
paradigms
of
teacher
education.
Journal
of
Teacher
Education,
34(3),
3‐9.
Zeichner,
K.
(1992).
Conceptions
of
reflective
teaching
in
contemporary
U.S.
teacher
education
program
reforms.
In
Reflective
teacher
education.
Cases
and
critiques.
L.
Valli
(Ed.).
New
York:
Sate
University
of
New
York.
Zeichner,
K.
(1999).
The
new
scholarship
in
teacher
education.
Educational
Researcher
28(9),
4‐15.
Zeichner,
K.,
&
Liston,
D.
(1987).
Teaching
student
teachers
to
reflect.
Harvard
Educational
Review,
56(1),
23‐48.
Zeichner,
K.,
&
Liston,
D.
(1996).
Reflective
Teaching:
An
Introduction.
New
Jersey:
Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates.
31