January 6, 2013
TE902: Spring 2013
Proseminar in Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education II
Tuesdays 4:00-6:50 pm
111 Ernst Bessey Hall
Instructors:
Robert E. Floden
floden@msu.edu
620 Farm Lane, Room 201D
517-355-3486
Lynn Paine
painel@msu.edu
620 Farm Lane, Room 116M
517-355-3266
Office Hours: By appointment
Course Website: http://angel.msu.edu
Goals
TE 902 is the second of two proseminar courses required of all entering students in the
doctoral program in Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education (CITE). As you know
by now, the proseminar experience is intended to provide a foundation for you as a
doctoral student. The experience will introduce you to an array of questions about
education, immerse you in key works in the educational literature, and induct you into
ways of framing and pursuing issues that you will draw on in the rest of your scholarly
career. The two proseminar courses share these broad aims, but they differ in the
substantive issues that each uses as the means of achieving these aims. TE902 draws on the
cross-national literature on teaching and the US literature on the evaluation of teaching and
teacher education.
TE902 serves many purposes - both building upon and extending what you have done in
TE901.
1) Introducing you to current and classic debates related to teaching and teacher
education, and helping you to situate your own work and interests in the larger
field;
2) Engaging in and strengthening your skills and voice in the practices of scholarship reading, writing, and conversation
Overview
Within the broad scope of teaching and teacher education, we have chosen to focus our
energies this semester around the themes of 1) cross-national comparisons of teaching
goals and 2) evaluating teachers and teacher education for improvement and
accountability. These themes have much policy and practical relevance in both current
and historical debates within the U.S. and around the world. We have chosen these focal
themes, in part, because they will allow us to draw upon different and sometimes
1
conflicting perspectives. Because they are complex and rich with debates, issues, and
fundamental questions, the themes allow us to examine connections between these two
topics. To explore these themes, we will draw upon our own experiences and
commitments and examine the perspectives expressed in different genres of writing.
Course expectations and requirements
We've structured the course—both class sessions and assignments out of class—to allow
us to work on the various goals of the course and develop skills that we see as foundational
in CITE scholarship. We have crafted a set of assignments that together support your
learning in a range of ways. Below, we have briefly described the major assignments.
Additional detail will be available in separate descriptions, available on Angel.
In-Class Participation
This is a seminar. We see the class meetings themselves as a very important time to
work together to develop ideas together, to further our skills as readers and analysts,
and, therefore, preparation for and participation in class is vital. We expect you to come
to class prepared, having read carefully the assigned readings and formulated questions
and reactions. We expect you to participate. During the semester, we will be discussing
norms for participation and how we can most productively work together during our
in-class sessions.
Commentary on Readings
We will use an on-line forum for a discussion of readings in advance of class sessions.
This blends our commitment to serious reading with an interest in developing your
voices as readers and thinkers. This can be difficult to do in the heat of the moment in a
class seminar, particularly early in the semester, when we don't know each other well.
An on-line forum gives you an opportunity to practice reading carefully and expressing
ideas about assigned readings, as well as an opportunity to see and react to how others
interpret text. We see this as enhancing your ability to engage in dialog both with
others in this class and with ideas in the field. These are the smallest units of writing,
and this regular and repeated writing offers preparation for critical reviews (which you
will in this course, for the preliminary examination, and throughout your scholarly
career).
Four times during the semester, you will provide a brief written commentary on one or
more readings for that week's session. We will also ask you react to one or more
classmates' commentaries.
Critical Reviews
A fundamental of scholarly activity involves critical analysis of a piece of research. This
genre includes both serious consideration of the author's argument and informed
critique. You will write two critical reviews during the semester. These offer you both
the opportunity to develop the skills required for this genre (and for much of
educational scholarship).
2
Final Paper
This assignment invites you to identify an area of scholarly interest, locate resources to
support your learning in that area, and draw connections between those and our course
readings and discussion. In preparation for the final paper, you and a colleague will
identify two or more faculty to interview related to the area(s) you've identified. In
consultation with your interviewees, you will identify additional readings to deepen
your understanding of perspectives within this area. In your final paper, you will draw
on course readings and other readings you identify to pose a question and discuss it
analytically, situating that discussion within the larger field.
Your grade for this course will be based on the following distribution:
In-Class Participation
15%
Commentary on Readings
20%
Critical Reviews (each worth approximately 20%)
40%
Final Paper
25%
Much of this writing is oriented towards dialog, the opportunity for feedback and practice,
and iterative improvement. To accomplish that, it is important to work within the
deadlines set for each assignment. Late work is, therefore, a problem, particularly for the
commentaries on readings, which must be available to other class members in time for
them to write responses before class. Because of the particular importance of timely
completion of commentaries, we will deduct 0.5 from the grade of commentaries turned in
late.
Our seminar hinges on full engagement by all participants, on respect, and on willingness to
raise questions and make suggestions. We view this class as an opportunity for joint
inquiry and plan to adjust and make changes along the way. We look forward to working
together as a class.
Policies, procedures, & information
We intend that students from diverse backgrounds and perspectives be well-served by this
course; that students’ learning needs be addressed both in and out of class; and that the
diversity that students bring to this course be viewed as a resource, strength, and benefit.
Your suggestions about how to improve the value of diversity in this course are encouraged
and appreciated.
In addition, we wish to fully include persons with disabilities in this course. If you have a
disability-related need for modifications in this course, please let us know and follow
appropriate procedures with the Resource Center for Persons with Disabilities.
Writing is a crucial component of any graduate-level course. If you need assistance beyond
that available from the instructors and other class participants, please consider contacting
3
the College of Education Office of Student Writing Assistance (OWSA), 513-F Erickson Hall,
517-432-0425, campbell@msu.edu.
We assume that all assignments turned in as part of this course are honest representations of
your own work. Violations of the academic integrity policy, such as plagiarism or academic
fraud are grounds for academic action and/or disciplinary sanction as described in Michigan
State University’s student conduct code. Incidents of plagiarism will be taken very seriously;
therefore, you are cautioned not to copy any text without using appropriate quotations and
source citations. If you have any questions about what constitutes plagiarism, please ask!
(University regulations on plagiarism, as well as links to additional resources on this topic,
are available at https://www.msu.edu/unit/ombud/academic-integrity/plagiarismpolicy.html .)
4
Course Schedule
Jan. 8 Week 1 Introductions: studying teaching, focusing on goals and
accountability

Cohen, D. K. (2012). Teaching and its predicaments. Cambridge: Harvard U
Press.
Jan. 15 Week 2 Goals for teaching/purposes of schooling


Dewey, J. (1900). The school and society. Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press.
Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press: Chapters 5 (Perspectives on Purpose) and Ch. 6 (Endemic
Uncertainties), Appendix A (Sample Description) and Appendix B (The
Questions), and related notes.
Jan. 22 Week 3—Comparing goals for teaching

Tobin, Hsueh, and Karasawa (2009). Preschool in three cultures revisited:
China, Japan and the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jan. 29 Week 4 Curricular goals and implications for teaching
 http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards
 focused selection from Common Core Standards in your chosen subject area
 Mathis, W. J., (2010). The "Common Core" standards initiative: An effective
reform tool? Boulder, CO and Tempe, AZ: Education and the Public Interest
Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Downloaded from:
http://epicpolicy.org/publication/common-core-standards
 Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards:
The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.
 Losito, B. and Mintrop, R. (2001). The teaching of civic education. In TorneyPurta et al. (Eds.) Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries. IEA.
[downloadable]
Feb. 5 Week 5 Instructional issues and analyses in teaching
 Jackson, P. W. (1990). Life in Classrooms. NY: Teachers College Press.
Introduction, Preface and Ch. 1 (The Daily Grind).
 Hiebert, J. & Stigler, J. W. (2004). A world of difference. Journal of Staff
Development, 25 (4), 10-15.
 Givvin, K. B., Hiebert, J., Jacobs, J. K., Hollingsworth, H., & Gallimore, R. (2005).
Are there national patterns of teaching? Evidence from the TIMSS 1999 video
study. Comparative Education Review, 49, 311-343.
5

Santagata, R. (2005). Practices and beliefs in mistake-handling activities: A
video study of Italian and US mathematics lessons. Teaching and Teacher
Education 21: 491-508.
Feb. 12 Week 6 Understanding teaching in the context of globalization
 Paine and Zeichner (2012). The local and the global in reforming teaching
and teacher education. Comparative Education Review 56 (4): 569-583.
 Robertson, S. L. (2012). Placing teachers in governance agendas. Comparative
Education Review 56 (4): 584-607.
 Vavrus, F. and Bartlett, L. (2012). Comparative pedagogies and
epistemological diversity: Social and materials contexts of teaching in
Tanzania. Comparative Education Review 56 (4): 634-658.


Optional: selections from Schriewer, J.
Optional: selections from Lauder et al. (2012) Educating for the knowledge
economy.
Feb. 19 Week 7 Goals for what teachers need to know



Tatto, M. T. et al. (2012) Policy, practice and readiness to teach primary and
secondary mathematics in 17 countries: Findings from the IEA Teacher
Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). IEA.
Darling-Hammond, L. and Lieberman, A. (2012). Teacher education around
the world: What can we learn from international practice? Pp. 151-169. In
Darling-Hammond and Lieberman, Eds. Teacher Education around the
World. NY: Routledge.
Zeichner, K. and Liston, D. (1990). Traditions of reform in US teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education 41(2).
Feb. 26 Week 8 Synthesis and reflection: Thinking about teaching goals
comparatively
Mar. 5 Spring Break – No class
Mar. 12 Week 9 Evaluating the quality of teaching



Floden, R. E. (2001). Research on effects of teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 3-16). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Kennedy, Mary M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality.
Educational Researcher, 39(8), 591-598. doi: 10.3102/0013189X10390804
Goldstein, Jennifer. (2009). Designing transparent teacher evaluation: The
role of oversight panels for professional accountability. Teachers College
Record, 111(4), 893-933.
6



Fenstermacher, Gary D., & Richardson, Virginia. (2005). On making
determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186213.
Optional:
Kennedy, Mary M. (2004). Examining teacher quality. In F. Lester, Jr. & J.
Ferrini-Mundy (Eds.), Proceedings of the NCTM Research Catalyst
Conference. Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Mar. 19 Week 10 Recent studies of teaching/teacher quality





Optional:

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2012). Gathering Feedback for Teaching:
Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement
Gains. Retrieved from
http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Research
_Paper.pdf
Guarino, Cassandra, & Stacy, Brian. (2012). Review of Gathering Feedback for Teaching.
Boulder, CO: National Education Poiicy Center, School of Education, University of
Colorado. (Retrieved on January 6, 2013 from
http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT_Guarino_MET.pdf .)
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The Widget Effect:
Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher
Effectiveness (2nd ed.): The New Teacher Project. (Accessed November 26,
2012 from http://widgeteffect.org )
Goldhaber, Dan, & Anthony, Emily. (2007). Can teacher quality be effectively
assessed? National Board certification as a signal of effective teaching. The
Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 134-150.
Nye, Barbara, Konstantopoulos, Spyros, & Hedges, Larry V. (2007). How large are
teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257.
Koedel, Cory. (2011). Grading standards in education departments at
universities. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(23).
Mar. 26 Week 11 Evaluating the quality of teacher preparation


Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.) (2005). Executive summary. In
Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and
Teacher Education (pp. 1-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn. (2001). Constructing outcomes in teacher education: Policy,
practice, and pitfalls. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(11). (Retrieved on December
5, 2012 from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/340/466 )
7







Crowe, E. (2010). Measuring What Matters: A Stronger Accountability Model for
Teacher Education. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating School Teachers: The Education Schools Project.
Retrieved from http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf
Optional:
Labaree, D. F. (1996). The trouble with ed schools. Educational Foundations,
10(3), 27-45.
National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for
sound policy. Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the
United States, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Wilson, Suzanne M., Floden, Robert E., & Ferrini-Mundy, Joan. (2001). Teacher
preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle: Center
for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Kennedy, M. M., Ahn, S., & Choi, J. (2008). The value added by teacher education. In M.
Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Teacher Education: Enduring Issues in Changing Contexts (3rd ed., pp. 1249-1273).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Apr. 2 Week 12 State teacher evaluation systems





Hazi, Helen M. (2009). Teacher evaluation as a policy target for improved student
learning: A fifty-state review of statue and regulatory action since NCLB. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 17(5).
Glazerman, Steven, Goldhaber, Dan, Loeb, Susanna, Raudenbush, Stephen, Staiger,
Douglas O., & Whitehurst, Grover J. (2011). Passing Muster: Evaluating Teacher
Evaluation Systems. Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings.
Roeber, Edward. (2010). Using tests to evaluate classroom teachers. Michigan
Assessment Consortium. (Retrieved from
http://www.michiganassessmentconsortium.org/sites/default/files/MAC-WhitepaperRoeber-Classroom-Evaluation.pdf )
Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness. (2012). Interim Progress Report.
(Retrieved from http://www.mcede.org/reports )
Cole, Cassandra M., Robinson, James N., Ansaldo, Jim, Whiteman, Rodney S., & Spradlin,
Terry E. (2012). Overhauling Indiana Teacher Evaluation Systems: Examining Planning
and Implementation Issues of School Districts Education Policy Brief (Vol. 10).
Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy.
Apr. 9 Week 13 Comparing the quality of teacher preparation models
8




Hess, F. (2001). Tear down the wall: The case for a radical overhaul of teacher
certification. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
Apple, Michael W. (2001). Markets, standards, teaching, and teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education, 52(3), 182-196.
Boyd, Donald J., Grossman, Pam, Lankford, Hamilton, Loeb, Susanna, Michelli, Nicholas
M., & Wyckoff, Jim. (2006). Complex by design: Investigating pathways into teaching in
New York City schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 155-166. doi:
10.1177/0022487105285943
Glazerman, Steven, Meyer, David, & Decker, Paul. (2006). Alternative routes to teaching:
The impacts of Teach for America on student achievement and other outcomes. Journal
of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(1), 75-96.


Optional:
Boyd, Donald, Grossman, Pam L., Hammerness, Karen, Lankford, R. Hamilton, Loeb,
Susanna, McDonald, Morva, . . . Wyckoff, James. (2008). Surveying the Landscape of
Teacher Education in New York City: Constrained Variation and the Challenge of
Innovation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(4), 319-343. doi:
10.3102/0162373708322737

Apr. 16 Week 14 Using VAM to compare individual preparation
programs

Gansle, Kristin A., Noell, George H., & Burns, Jeanne M. (2012). Do student achievement
outcomes differ across teacher preparation programs? An analysis of teacher education
in Louisiana. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 304-317. doi:
10.1177/0022487112439894
Plecki, Margaret L., Elfers, Ana M., & Nakamura, Yugo. (2012). Using evidence for
teacher education program improvement and accountability: An illustrative case of the
role of value-added measures. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 318-334. doi:
10.1177/0022487112447110
Floden, Robert E. (2012). Teacher value added as a measure of program quality:
Interpret with caution. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 356-360. doi:
10.1177/0022487112454175
Koedel, Cory, Parsons, Eric, Podgursky, Michael, & Ehlert, Mark. (2012). Teacher
Preparation Programs and Teacher Quality: Are There Real Differences Across
Programs. University of Missouri, Columbia, Department of Economics.
Retrieved from Retrieved on December 5, 2012 from
http://economics.missouri.edu/workingpapers/2012/WP1204_koedel_et_al.pdf



Optional:
9

Goldhaber, Dan, & Liddle, Stephanie. (2012, January). The Gateway to the
Profession: Assessing Teacher Preparation Programs Based on Student
Achievement. National Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education
Research Fifth Annual Conference, "Human Capital Policies in Education: Further
Research on Teachers and Principals."
http://www.caldercenter.org/upload/Goldhaber-et-al.pdf

Apr. 23 Week 15
Evaluating the quality of professional development








Garet, Michael S., Porter, Andrew C., Desimone, Laura, Birman, Beatrice F., & Yoon, Kwang
Suk. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national
sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Ingersoll, Richard, & Strong, Michael. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring
programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational
Research, 81(2), 201-233. doi: 10.3102/0034654311403323
Wilson, Suzanne M, & Berne, Jennifer. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of
professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional
development. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Vol.
24, pp. 173-209). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Desimone, Laura M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional
development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher,
38(3), 181-199. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140
Optional:
Desimone, Laura M., Porter, Andrew C., Garet, Michael S., Yoon, Kwang Suk, & Birman,
Beatrice F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results
from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81112.
Glazerman, Steven, Isenberg, Eric, Dolfin, Sarah, Bleeker, Martha, Johnson, Amy, Grider,
Mary, & Jacobus, Matthew. (2010). Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Final
Results from a Randomized Controlled Study. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.
Guskey, Thomas R. (2009). Closing the knowledge gap on effective professional
development. Educational Horizons, 87(2), 224-233.
Final Exam Week (May 2; 5:45-7:45)
Course Wrap-Up
10
Tentative Assignment Schedule
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 7
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Week 12
Week 13
Week 15
Jan. 13 – Team 1 Commentaries
Jan. 15 – Team 2 Reactions
Jan. 20 - Team 2 Commentaries
Jan. 22 - Team 1 Reactions
Jan. 27 - Team 1 Commentaries
Jan. 29 - Team 2 Reactions
Feb. 3 -Team 2 Commentaries
Feb. 5 - Team 1 Reactions
Feb. 22 - Critical Review #1
Mar. 10 - Team 1 Commentaries
Mar. 12 - Team 2 Reactions
Mar. 17 – Team 2 Commentaries
Mar. 19 - Team 1 Reactions
Mar. 29 - Critical Review #2
Mar. 31 - Team 1 Commentaries
Apr. 2 - Team 2 Reactions
Apr. 7 - Team 2 Commentaries
Apr. 9 - Team 1 Reactions
Apr. 26 - Final Paper
11