Common
Theoretical
Framework
Opening
Statement
Teacher
 preparation
 is
 undergoing
 a
 turbulent
 period
 in
 its
 history;
 these
 are
 challenging
times
for
those
of
us
laboring
in
the
field
of
education.
The
need
for
academically
 well
 prepared
 candidates
 equipped
 to
 deal
 effectively
 with
 the
 challenges
 of
 an
 increasingly
 complex
and
diverse
society
and
world
has
never
been
higher.

Teacher
candidates
will
need
to
 be
highly
skilled,
well‐prepared
professionals
and
Teacher
Education
Programs
such
as
ours
at
Western
 Illinois
 University
 must
 accept
 the
 challenge
 of
 producing
 teachers,
 and
 related
 education
 professionals,
 who
 are
 fully
 prepared
 to
 impact
 student
 learning
 in
 profound
 and
 positive
ways.
We
accept
the
challenge,
indeed
are
stimulated
by
it.
We
also
take
seriously
the
injunction
that
today's
educational
practice
be
scientifically
 grounded.

After
much
consideration,
and
based
on
the
strong
research
foundation
in
this
area
(Feltovitch,
Prietula
&
Ericsson,
2006),
we
have
decided
to
adopt
a
novice‐to‐expert
framework,
 grounded
in
a
cognitive
science
theoretical
perspective,
as
our
guiding
framework.
The
WIU
Teacher
Education
and
Other
School
Professionals
Preparation
Program
rests
 on
a
solid
scientific
foundation
and
is
dedicated
to
developing,
and
operationalizing,
an
explicit
 framework
of
the
phases
of
the
development
of
expertise
in
teaching
and
related
professions.
The
WIU
Teacher
Preparation
Program
is
grounded
in
the
notion
that
teacher
candidates
begin
 as
novices
and
move
through
a
developmental
process
that
leads
them
to
initial
expertise
in
 their
 chosen
 profession.
 
 We
 operate
 from
 the
 assumption
 that
 great
 teachers,
 as
 is
 true
 of
 experts
 in
 every
 complex
 domain,
 are
 made
 rather
 than
 born.
 The
 achievement
 of
 expertise
 requires
 knowledge,
 commitment,
 reflection,
 action,
 and
 deliberate
 practice
 (Ericsson,
 2006;
Feltovitch,
Prietula
&
Ericsson,
2006).
Such
an
aim
is
directly
connected
to
the
knowledge,
skills,
 and
dispositions
as
defined
in
the
target
level
of
standard
one
in
the
NCATE
framework.
To
move
candidates
along
the
developmental
path
to
expertise
we
employ
the
notion
of
 a
learning
progression
based
on
the
“big
ideas”
of
a
field
or
domain
(Pellegrino,
2006).

Learning
 progressions,
 in
 this
 light,
 are
 defined
 as:
 “…empirically
 grounded
 and
 testable
 hypotheses
 about
how
students'
understanding
of,
and
ability
to
use,
core
…
concepts
and
explanations
and
related
 …
 practices
 grow
 and
 become
 more
 sophisticated
 over
 time,
 with
 appropriate
 instruction” 
 (Duschl
 et
 al,
 2007).)
 
 The
 idea
 of
 a
 learning
 progression
 allows
 our
 program
 to
 organize
the
various
content
areas
candidates
must
learn
and
describes
a
route
towards
more
 sophisticated
knowledge
and
understanding;
specify
the
connections
between
ideas,
domains,
 and
 practices
 students
 need
 to
 build
 an
 integrated
 knowledge
 framework;
 provide
 potential
 instructional
strategies
and
learning
tasks
to
help
students
move
from
one
level
of
expertise
to
 the
next.

Ultimately,
the
aim
is
to
provide
an
integrated
program
operating
on
the
basis
of
the
 best
science
and
practices
available.

Selected
Bibliography
Expertise
Alexander,
 P.
 A.
 
 (2003).
 The
 development
 of
 expertise:
 the
 journey
 from
 acclimation
 to
 proficiency.

Educational
Researcher,
32,
8,
10‐14.
Anderson,
J.
R.
(1982).

Acquisition
of
cognitive
skill.

Psychological
Review,
89,
4,
369‐406.
Barnett,
S.
M.
&

Koslowski,
B.
(2002).

Adaptive
expertise:
Effects
of
type
of
experience
and
the
 level
of
theoretical
understanding
it
generates.
Thinking
and
Reasoning,
8
(4),
237–267
Bereiter,
 C.
 &
 Scardamalia,
 M.
 (1993).
 
 Surpassing
 ourselves:
 an
 inquiry
 into
 the
 nature
 and
implications
of
expertise.
Chicago,
IL:
Open
Court.
Berliner,
 D.
 C.
 (2004).
 
 
 Describing
 the
 behavior
 and
 documenting
 the
 accomplishments
 of
expert

teachers.
Bulletin
of
Science,
Technology
&
Society,
24,
3,
200‐212.
Berliner,
D.
C.
(1994).
The
wonder
of
exemplary
performances.

In,
J.
N.
Mangieri
and
C.
Collins,
Eds.
Creating
powerful
thinking
in
teachers
and
students.
Ft.
Worth,
TX:
Holt,
Rinehart
&
Winston.
Butterworth,
B.
(2006).

Mathematical
expertise.

In

K.A.
Ericsson,

N.
Charness,

P.J.
Feltovich.
&
R.
R.
Hoffman,
Eds.,
The
Cambridge
handbook
of
expertise
and
expert
performance.
Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Chi,
M.
T.
H.
(2006).
Two
Approaches
to
the
Study
of
Experts’
Characteristics.

In,
K.A.
Ericsson,
N.
Charness,

P.J.
Feltovich.
&
R.
R.
Hoffman,
Eds.,
The
Cambridge
handbook
of
expertise
 and
expert
performance.

Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Chi,
 M.
 T.
 H.,
 
 Glaser,
 R.
 &
 
 Farr,
 M.
 J.
 Eds.
 (1988).
 The
 nature
 of
 expertise.
 
 Mahwah,NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates.
Clark,
 R.
 C.
 (2008).
 Building
 expertise:
 cognitive
 methods
 for
 training
 and
 performance
improvement,
3rd
ed.
San
Francisco:
John
Wiley
&
Sons.
Committee
on
the
Study
of
Teacher
Preparation
Programs
in
the
United
States

 (2010).
PreparingTeachers:
 Building
 Evidence
 for
 Sound
 Policy.
 Washington,
 D.C.:
 National
Academy
of
Sciences.
Dall’Alba,
 G.
 &
 Sandberg,
 J.
 (2006).
 
 Unveiling
 professional
 development:
 a
 critical
 review
 of
 stage
models.

Review
of
Educational
Research,
76,
3,
383‐412.
Darling‐Hammond,
L.
(2006).

Constructing
21st‐century
teacher
education.

Journal
of
Teacher
Education,
57,
10,
1‐15.
Dreyfus,
H.
L.
&
Dreyfus,
S.
E.
(1980).

A
five‐stage
model
of
the
mental
activities
involved
in
directed
 skill
 acquisition.
 ORC‐80‐2.
 Operations
 Research
 Center,
 University
 of
California,
Berkeley,
pp.
1‐18.
Dreyfus,
H.
L.
&
Dreyfus,
S.
E.
(1986).

Mind
over
machine.

NY:
The
Free
Press.
Ericsson,
K.
A.
(2006).

The
influence
of
experience
and
deliberate
practice
on
the
development
of
superior
expert
performance.

In

K.A.
Ericsson,

N.
Charness,

P.J.
Feltovich

&

R.
R.
Hoffman,
 Eds.,
 The
 Cambridge
 handbook
 of
 expertise
 and
 expert
 performance.
Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Ericsson,
 K.
 A.
 &
 Lehmann,
 A.C.
 (1996).
 Expert
 and
 exceptional
 performance:
 evidence
 of
 maximal
adaptation
to
task
constraints.
Annual
Review
of
Psychology,
47,
273‐305.

Ericsson,
 K.A.,
 
 Charness,
 
 N.,
 Feltovich
 ,
 P.J..
 &
 Hoffman,
 R.
 R.
 Eds.
 (2006).
 
 The
 Cambridge
 handbook
of

 expertise
and
expert
performance.

Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Feltovich,
P.J.,
Prietula,
M.J.,
&
Ericsson,
K.A.
(2006).

Studies
of
expertise
from
psychological
 perspectives.

In

K.A.
Ericsson,

N.
Charness,

P.J.
Feltovich.
&
R.
R.
Hoffman,
Eds.,
The
Cambridge
handbook
of
expertise
and
expert
performance
(pp.
41‐68).

Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Fitts,
P.M.
(1964).
Perceptual‐motor
skill
learning.

In,
A.
W.
Melton,
Ed.
Categories
of
human
learning.

NY:
Academic
Press.
Hoffman,
R.
R.
(1998).
How
can
expertise
be
defined?
Implications
of
research
from
cognitive
psychology.
In
R.
Williams,
W.
Faulkner,
&
J.
Fleck
(Eds.),
Exploring
expertise:
issues
and
 perspectives.
New
York:
Macmillan.
Hammerness,
K.,
Darling‐Hammond,
L.,
Bransford,
J,
Berliner,
D.,

Cochran‐Smith,
M,
McDonald,
M.
&
Zeichner,
K.
(2005).

How
teachers
learn
and
develop.

In,
L.
Darling‐Hammond
&
J.
Bransford,
 Eds.
 
 Preparing
 teachers
 for
 a
 changing
 world:
 what
 teachers
 should
 learn
 and
be
able
to
do.

Jossey‐Bass.
Hatano,
 G.
 &
 Oura,
 Y.
 (2003).
 Reconceptualizing
 school
 learning
 using
 insight
 from
 expertise
research.

Educational
Researcher,
32,
8,
26‐29.
Lampert,
 M.,
 &
 Clark,
 C.
 M.
 (1990).
 Expert
 knowledge
 and
 expert
 thinking
 in
 teaching:
 A
response
to
Floden
and
Klinzing.

Educational
Research,
19(5),
21–23.
VanLehn,
K.
(1996).
Cognitive
skill
acquisition.

Annual
Reviews
of
Psychology,
47,
513‐539.
Voss,
J.
F.
&
Wiley,
J.
(2006).

Expertise
in
history.

In

K.A.
Ericsson,

N.
Charness,

P.J.
Feltovich.
&
R.
R.

Hoffman,
Eds.,
The
Cambridge
handbook
of
expertise
and
expert
performance.
Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Selected
Bibliography
Big
Ideas
and
Learning
Progressions
Duschl,
 R.
 A.,
 Schweingruber,
 H.
 A.,
 &
 Shouse,
 A.
 (Eds.).
 (2007).
Taking
 science
 to
 school:
Learning
and
teaching
science
in
grades
K‐8 .
Washington,
D.C.:
National
Academy
Press.
Pellegrino,
J.
W.
(2009).
The
design
of
an
assessment
system
for
the
Race
to
the
Top:
a
learning
sciences
 perspective
 on
 issues
 of
 growth
 and
 measurement .
 Exploratory
 seminar
 presented
at
the
Center
for
K‐12
Assessment
&
Performance.
Pellegrino,
 J.
 W.
 (2006).
Rethinking
 and
 redesigning
 curriculum,
 instruction
 and
 assessment:
what
contemporary
research
and
theory
suggests .

Paper
commissioned
by
the
National
Center
 on
 Education
 and
 the
 Economy
 for
 the
 New
 Commission
 on
 the
 Skills
 of
 the
American
Workforce.
Stevens,
 S.,
 Sutherland,
 L.
 A.,
 Schank,
 P,
 &
 Krajcik,
 J.
 (2007).
 
 The
 big
 ideas
 of
 nanoscience .
Unpublished
manuscript.
Stevens,
S.,
Shin,
M.
&

Krajcik,
J.
(2009).
Towards
a
Model
For
the
Development
of
an

Empirically
Tested
Learning
Progression.
Paper
presented
at
the
Learning
Progressions
 in
Science
(LeaPS)
Conference,
June
2009,
Iowa
City,
IA.
Wilson,
 M.
 (2009).
 Measuring
 Progressions:
 Assessment
 Structures
 Underlying
 a
 Learning
Progression.
Journal
of
Research
in
Science
Teaching ,
46,
6,
716‐730.