COLLEGE & GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
EDUCATION, HEALTH, AND HUMAN SERVICES
PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
This conceptual framework describes a shared mission and vision for how our unit prepares educators and other school professionals to work with P-12 schools. It defines the philosophy and knowledge base from which we have developed our programs and it is aligned with the
University’s mission and vision to foster critical thinking that expands intellectual horizons and fosters responsible citizenship.
Professional Education Mission Statement
In preparing education professionals , we seek to develop educators adept in both the art and science of teaching new generations of citizens who can assume the challenges of a rapidly changing and diverse society. This mission provides the basis for our conceptual framework, the tenets of which are practiced by our faculty, students, and graduates. The mission is guided by the history and traditions of Kent State University, an institution built a century ago upon a commitment to public education and scholarship, balancing the tensions between freedom of expression and order in a democracy.
Professional Education Vision
It is the aim of the Kent State University professional education faculty to create premier national programs, ones recognized for: o Outstanding scholarship that impacts theory and practice in their respective fields of study, and o Innovative learning opportunities that emphasize educating each student to be a knowledgeable, empathetic, and creative member of any education setting.
It is our intent, therefore, to graduate individuals who demonstrate the knowledge, skills and dispositions inherent in our conceptual framework. Through these means, faculty and graduates become agents of change because they understand the evolving social, political, and economic needs of a diverse society and thus have the ability to respond to a complex and changing global environment.
In order to enact this mission and vision, we must prepare education professionals of the highest quality. To do this, we draw on the knowledge base in the field to guide the development and implementation of our programs.
We have identified essential professional competencies that all of our candidates must demonstrate in order to complete their professional preparation, drawn from both theoretical and research bodies of literature about the preparation of professionals. The unit and P-12

schools work in partnership with our candidates to provide authentic, field-based preparation, with communication flowing continuously among all participants. The graphic which follows depicts this essential and necessary loop of communication and practice, along with the five categories of proficiencies: In-Depth Content Knowledge, Learner-Centered Pedagogy, Ethical and Culturally-Responsive Practices, Informed Reflective Practice, and Professional
Collaboration.
2
These five categories provide the essence of the unit’s values and beliefs about professional education. These are also the framework for our assessment system. We offer the rationale and theory underlying each of our professional education competencies for our candidates in the sections that follow.
In-Depth Content Knowledge

Knows and understands discipline-specific content and pedagogy

Places knowledge in a broader context and integrates it with other content areas

Seeks out and uses innovative, content-appropriate teaching methods
A key aspect of our conceptual framework is "In-Depth Content Knowledge." Alone, this term could be understood in a variety of ways but we choose to clarify it by adding the three descriptors listed above. These are the professional education competencies that we expect all candidates to have.
Knowledge of the content of a specific area, mathematics, music, or social studies for example, are clearly important foundations, but an understanding of one of these areas alone is not sufficient for a teacher to be able to help others understand the complexity of that content knowledge (Floden & Meniketti, 2005; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2002). In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Shulman (1986, 1987) and colleagues (Grossman, 1990; Wilson, Shulman, &
Richert, 1987) attempted to provide a framework to articulate this complexity and since then, researchers have worked to develop our understandings of this in various ways (e.g. Gess-
Newsome & Lederman, 1999; Hill, Rowan & Ball, 2005; Ormrod & Cole, 1996).
As we consider the complexities of subject matter knowledge, one aspect that we find to be particularly important is the ability to understand a specific content area in the larger world. In social studies, for example, this is manifested in the National Council for the Social
Studies (1994) position statement “A Vision of Powerful Teaching and Learning in the Social

3
Studies: Building Social Understanding and Civic Efficacy” through both the idea of integration and extending meaning. To make the content meaningful for students, a teacher should be able to help students see and make connections between the content under direct study and other aspects of the world around them. To help students better understand relationships within content, integrating content from other fields is critical Similarly, students’ understandings of mathematics influences how they make sense of social studies’ intersections with mathematics.
National standards for science and social studies explicitly honor integration by noting the relationship among science, technology, and society (NCSS, 1994; NCSS, 2002; NSTA, 1996:
NSTA, 2003). We value and hope to prepare professional education candidates who are beginning to understand the deeper connections across the curriculum to better help their students become thoughtful citizens while learning their content deeply.
Our commitment to the final aspect, “seeks out and uses creative, innovative, and content-appropriate teaching methods,” comes from a commitment to preparing future educators who are able to meet the needs of a variety of students in a multitude of contexts. If our professional education candidates are disposed toward actively searching for new and effective ways to help all students learn content, they will be more likely to be successful, thus our emphasis on Learner-Centered Pedagogy.
Learner-Centered Pedagogy

Understands how students learn

Facilitates inquiry-based learning and authentic assessment

Creates a learning environment that helps students build on prior knowledge

Uses technology in an ethical, critical, and competent manner as a means to acquire,
provide, organize, and communicate knowledge
Traditionally, teachers have been at the center of classroom instruction. Learnercentered pedagogy changes this viewpoint so that students are now at the heart of instruction, and it makes perfect sense that this should be so. With students at the center, learning—not teaching—becomes the thrust of instruction, the hallmark of a constructivist approach (Dewey,
1938).
When students are at the center, those who are supposed to be doing the learning are in a position to do just that. While teachers are, of course, officially at the helm of instructional design, when they take themselves out of the “I teach/you learn” paradigm (Apple, 1990), they provide for differentiated instruction that supports the achievement of all students—or at least many more—than when the teacher proposes one method of learning and expects all to be successful.
A learner-centered classroom focuses on solving problems rather than “managing or disciplining” students (Kohn, 1999). Students are considered less-experienced “colleagues” with whom a teacher works rather than “pupils,” human beings of a lesser order.
A learner-centered classroom focuses on students’ achievement. Key to enabling this is identifying and removing barriers from instructional methods and curriculum materials.
Supported by brain research, the Universal Design for Learning framework (Rose & Meyer, 2002) proposes that educators strive for three kinds of flexibility: “to represent information in multiple formats and media, to provide multiple pathways for students’ action and expression, and to provide multiple ways to engage students’ interests and motivation” (p. 69).
Therefore, learner-centered pedagogy values:
Choice:

4
Student choice energizes and nurtures achievement. Curricular standards are met through pursuing self-selected topics. Students who grow in classrooms that honor choice experience what it feels like to be life-long learners, not just school-time learners. Offering students options honors the developmental nature of learning (Piaget, 1950); offering students options emphasizes learning as an act of culture and freedom (Freire, 1970, 1993).
Allowing for choice honors students as thinkers, as human beings competent to make worthwhile decisions about their academic lives. Traditional curriculum mandates what students should know—whether it interests or engages them or not—Freire’s “banking model;” learner-centered pedagogy rails against having pre-selected knowledge deposited into passive minds (1970). Learner-centered classrooms are filled with active participants.
Responsibility:
Since students are at the heart of their learning, they construct their own knowledge.
No one can do this for them. Teachers act as coaches rather than directors, allowing students to try out varying roles so that the learning spectrum is as broad as possible. Students have the chance to envision unanticipated futures for themselves because they have not been limited by someone else’s agenda. When students have the opportunity to follow their passions, responsibility is readily embraced.
Responsibility leads to reflection on the effectiveness of learning. When students share with their teachers what they still need, teachers’ practices change; in turn, student options then change, allowing for further reflection which strengthens both student engagement and ownership.
Responsibility extends beyond cognitive choices to self-discipline as well. Imposed discipline, part of the factory model, actively interferes with the process of allowing students to grow into responsible, compassionate adults. Excluding them from such experiences and decision-making opportunities precludes such insights and actions (Kohn, 1999).
Engagement:
Engagement nurtures deep understandings; depth of knowledge is valued over breadth of knowledge. This is accomplished through a meaningful and relevant curriculum which respects students’ decisions and transforms classrooms into safe, compassionate learning communities (Kohn, 1999). Acknowledgment of the social nature of learning nurtures achievement because students’ energies are focused on content, not overshadowed by other needs (Vygotsky, 1962).
Students are purposely led to interact with new material and situations. Teachers help students see the relevance of pertinent information so that students can make the knowledge their own. Until students can interpret the data so that they see the connections, true learning does not occur.
Learning engagement expects that students will ask questions and take risks in their learning when they are challenged by information that puzzles or confuses them. Engagement presupposes curiosity; learned-centered classrooms allow for students to follow their questions
(Erb, 2001).
Ownership:
Voices of students are clearly heard in learner-centered pedagogy where their dignity is respected. As their “ideas, hopes, aspirations and lives [are taken] seriously” (Beane, 1997, p.
68), students begin to “own” their knowledge. They are free to learn, and once content is known, the possibilities for making future connections are endless—and priceless. Teachers facilitate learning rather than specifying certain explicit concepts to be learned through memorization and recitation of facts.
Collaboration:

5
The social nature of education is fully supported in a learner-centered classroom. In such a classroom, all participants—teacher and students—are co-constructors of knowledge.
Teacher expertise is shared through scaffolding. As the more experienced persons, teachers share their knowledge with students; more experienced students share their expertise with less able peers (Vygotsky, 1978). Further, students often work together, synthesizing and creating a new product, representative of their new understandings (Bloom, 1984). This sense of community is built not only on the relationships among the adults and young people, but on the idea that they are mutually engaged in addressing shared questions and concerns. In these ways, young people have an opportunity to learn through experience the social knowledge that is part of the democratic way of life. (Beane, 1997, p. 65)
In partnership, these values—choice, responsibility, engagement, ownership, and collaboration—support a democratic classroom, where each voice is heard and considered. A democratic classroom models the world in which students will live as adults, a world where the knowledge generated in this information age will continue to increase at exponential rates. A democratic classroom is necessary, too, when global connections among world citizens occur at an ever-increasing pace. Learner-centered pedagogy makes this possible. Our candidates experience this approach in their coursework as they are expected to choose their areas of specialization, as they take responsibility for learning with and from others, for how they must engage in the content and with each other, how they take ownership for their choices and experiences, and how they work collaboratively with classmates and school personnel.
Understanding content knowledge deeply and honoring students’ learning is fully supported by our emphasis on Ethical and Culturally-Responsive Practices.
Ethical and Culturally-Responsive Practices

Exemplifies the highest ethical standards of the education profession

Values richness of human differences and understands the implications of these
differences in a socially stratified society

Adapts assessment, pedagogy, and educational programs to individual differences, with
particular attention to those differences that reflect social inequalities

Understands the importance of public education in a democracy
The College of Education, Health and Human Services believes that the very fact of being an educator commits one to a particular set of moral principles by virtue of membership in the profession (Goodlad, et al., 1990; Sullivan, 2005).
These principles are more or less articulated in the various codes of ethics of our licensure areas, specialized professional associations, and teacher organizations. More importantly, however, these principles are infused in each program area in such a way that our candidates’ understandings of what it means to be a teacher reflects both the moral commitments of the profession as a whole and the particular ethical challenges of each licensure area. Although we do not have a formal course in ethics for educators at the undergraduate level, candidates develop many of the skills of reflective ethical practice in their foundations courses, as well as in courses in content and pedagogy in the various licensure areas. Each program or licensure area promotes a particular ethos that candidates absorb as they move through the sequence of courses and into their field experiences. When candidates return to Kent State for their Master’s degrees, at which time they may choose to take a course in “Ethics for Educators and Human Service Professionals,” they find that they have so absorbed

6 this ethos that their personal moral commitments are fully aligned with the standards of professional ethical conduct of their area of expertise.
Early in their education, candidates across the college learn about the rights and responsibilities of teachers in “Education in a Democratic Society,” one of the first foundations courses they take. In this course, they come to understand the ways in which, as teachers, they will be held to higher standards than many other members of the community, not only while they are formally teaching, but also when they are “off-duty.” From the moment they are admitted to the college, teacher education candidates are also held to exacting standards of conduct by the EHHS. A recently developed “Statement on Student Professionalism” asks candidates to sign a document that articulates what these standards are, how candidates are expected to conduct themselves in relation to them, and the steps that will be taken should candidates fail to do so. Faculty hope that this document will be educative rather than punitive.
Connected to this moral responsibility is helping candidates build an appreciation for the richness of societal diversity. This belief is not ideological for KSU teacher education programs; rather it is to ensure that future teachers are prepared to bring their own professional judgment to bear on issues of diversity that affect their students’ learning.
Foundational to this desire for social justice in an increasingly diverse society means that candidates need to learn how to provide young people with ways to help them better understand the complex nature, not only of the United States, but of the world. Educators in the United States, as well as around the world, struggle with questions of how best to provide an education for all that is responsive to the needs of different communities while, at the same time, maintain a sense of local or national unity (Cushner, et al., 2006). The goal of teacher education programs at Kent State University is to provide that knowledge base, as well as a set of values and dispositions that enables our candidates not only to know, but also be willing and able to act in support of culturally diverse students and teaching practices.
An important part of the knowledge base in professional education for teachers are the skills involved in adapting curriculum, teaching methods, individual lessons, and assessments to account for individual differences. It is thus not enough to have a broad knowledge base surrounding the issues involved in teaching in a diverse society. Rather, one must have an equally broad set of skills for making effective connections with students who differ on a range of biological, psychological, and socio-cultural dimensions, including race, ethnicity, social class, religion, gender, geographical region, ability/disability, language, social status, sexuality, health, and age.
The teacher education programs at Kent State University support the notion that content-area standards and culturally responsive practices are not mutually exclusive, in the same way that equity and excellence are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, it is the case that to be culturally responsive is, in fact, to have standards of learning for all students rather than for just a few.
Teaching is a process of continual interaction between teacher, students, lessons or curricula, and the context in which teaching and learning occur. Our program draws concepts and ideas from the social sciences, particularly sociology, anthropology, learning theory, and cross-cultural psychology, as well as from the structure of the disciplines, to inform teacher education candidates with experiences of adapting curriculum and context to the needs of individual candidates. Thus, the approach to difference in this program is not necessarily group-
oriented (e.g., Native Americans, Hispanics, males and females, etc.), but rather is based on two central ideas: 1) that in a pluralistic society such as the United States, everyone is to some degree multicultural, and 2) that there are more differences within groups than between them.

7
The approach is thus educational rather than political in nature. One does not teach only one aspect of a student; nor does one teach a whole class of candidates; one teaches individual candidates, one student at a time. The program subscribes to the need for multiple teaching strategies—based on the best current knowledge about learning—and on the need for multiple forms of assessment, shaped to capture the many ways in which candidates learn and demonstrate what they have learned.
Included in all the programs is a grounding in the history of American education, with particular attention to the ways in which U.S. society has gradually broadened the answer to the question, “Who shall be educated?” Inasmuch as that discussion continues, and is informed not only by differing views within our society, but by economic realities and developing events
outside of our society, the knowledge base for teachers must also include attention to the arguments for and against diversity in schooling that are currently put forth in the political arena: the arguments underlying multicultural education; the demographics of a changing population that give rise to an increased need for attention to diversity; the degree to which attention to diversity is included in current laws and standards regarding schooling, and the degree to which attention to the needs of diverse learners has been incorporated into contemporary thinking about teaching and learning.
It is the goal of the teacher education program that such a knowledge base be accompanied by both instruction and practice in adapting curriculum, as well as individual lessons, to take many kinds of student differences into account, and that such instruction and practice will result in attitudes and values will support future teachers in their ability to incorporate a true appreciation for the richness of diversity into their professional lives and into the lives of their students.
Finally, because teachers work in schools and not simply in classrooms, our courses help candidates to understand how schools work, why they sometimes fail to work, and what might be done to improve the ethos of schooling. We draw on a growing research base on these sorts of issues in order to connect candidates to larger discussions among scholars whose work continues to push school reform initiatives in directions that are attentive to the need to change much of what goes on in American public schools while being equally attentive to the particular challenges of undertaking such an endeavor in a democratic society. Thus, for teachers and teacher candidates, the practice of Informed Reflective Practice in their daily professional lives is nurtured.
Informed Reflective Practice

Draws on research, theory, and multiple fields of knowledge, and aesthetic awareness for the development of curriculum, pedagogy, and educational programs

Employs the iterative process of action, observation, and reflection as the basis of improving practice

Uses multiple sources of data to plan, revise, and enact curriculum and educational programs
Reflective practice usually begins with reflection, meaning to comprehend the complexity of what we do and the material we teach. This typically includes seeing our actions and curricula through multiple lenses, understanding overt and hidden assumptions, and being aware of intended and unintended consequences. Reflective practice extends reflection, meaning looking beneath surfaces, asking questions, and raising issues, as well as exercising and judging merit. It means questioning practice with respect to larger social issues and questions
(Brookfield, 1995; Dewey, 1916; Schon, 1983).

8
We become reflective as we are able to move beyond “surviving” as teachers. Fuller
(1969) developed a theory that describes three phrases of a teacher's growth over time. In the first phase the teacher is concerned with survival. In the second phase the teacher is focused on curriculum development and learning to teach more knowledgeably, efficiently, and effectively,
In the last phase the teacher is focused on the larger import of curriculum, including social, ecological, economic, and educational consequences of action. Of course, some teachers start their careers with a focus on larger issues.
Curriculum should reflect not just the internal judgment of the individual teacher or planner, but a collective sense of what knowledge is most worth teaching and what it means to teach that knowledge. Teachers need to understand research and theory as a source of information for interpreting, problematizing, and addressing dilemmas in their professional practice. Reflection happens at the intersections of knowledge of students, the self, the larger historical and political world, and disciplinary ways of comprehending the world.
We act to align our practice with democratic principles. We observe the consequences of our actions, including the social and ethical consequences (Holly, Arhar, & Kasten, 2009). We reflect on those consequences. The cycle of reflective practice takes into account 1) a continually changing set of circumstances, 2) an evolving sense of disciplinary knowledge, 3) a need to reach each and every student, and 4, an evolving sense of self.
Teachers need to make informed judgments since our judgments are of such great consequence in the lives of our students. Informed judgments come from varied sources of data in order to test the validity of evaluations made about student learning and educational programs. Multiple sources of data allow us to probe our own assumptions as we make critical judgments. Potential sources of information include formal ones such as surveys, student work, and test scores, while informal sources include students’ comments, teachers’ observations, and information provided by others such as counselors, parents, and administrators. Informed reflective practice acknowledges the significant intersections of in-depth content knowledge with learner-centered pedagogy and ethically and culturally responsive methods, paving the way for Professional Collaboration.
Professional Collaboration

Understands the role of other professional educators and ancillary personnel

Demonstrates leadership for educating all children in collaboration with educators,
agencies, families, and communities

Values and demonstrates commitment to on-going professional development
Working together in an intellectual effort is the hallmark of collaboration (Earle, Friend
& Cook, 2000; Galassi, 2000; Seehafer, & Ostlund, 2001; Welch, 1998.). Professional collaboration can be defined as a process in which two or more people work together to identify common goals, to develop strategies for attaining those goals, and to jointly solve problems that arise in the process (Gable, et al. 2004; Leonard, et al. 2001; Pugach, et al. 1995). Literature suggests that collaboration is a more effective process than an authoritarian one (Gable, et al.
2004; Wenger, 1979), particularly when the process is perceived as empathetic (Schowengert, et al., 1976). Friend and Cook (2003) found that collaboration has six characteristics:
1) parity among participants;
2) mutual goal(s);
3) shared responsibility for participation – a “convenient” (not necessarily equal) division of labor;
4) equal participation in decision making;

9
5) pooled resources; and
6) shared accountability for outcomes, whether results are positive or negative.
The professional education programs at Kent State University take place within the context of a strong, supportive and collaborative community of learners. Broadly stated, this collaborative community of learners encompasses the eight campuses, public schools, other colleges, families, social service agencies, and several state and federal agencies.
Community may be defined as a “collection of individuals who are bonded together by natural will and who are together bound to a set of shared ideas and ideals” (Sergiovanni, 1996, p. 48). The practice of collaboration, then, is seen as an important key to the development of schools in moral communities (Leonard & Leonard, 2001). What is more, collaborative schools are then more likely to become “communities of learners” in which all participants would contribute to their own and each other’s growth (Pugach & Johnson, 1995). In fact, the Holmes
Partnership (2000), a consortium of 96 research universities with professional education programs, suggests a creation of Learning Communities through the partnerships of school and university faculties. In view of this recommendation, Kent State University has been striving to create an expansive learning community through the partnerships of schools, families, local businesses, various agencies, and others.
Schools are, by definition and practice, institutions that reflect the values of the community. If one of the most important goals of all schools is to help students achieve a worldclass education, then that responsibility does not lie solely in the hands of the schools. In particular, parents and the community also share responsibility. Everyone must get involved in the schools; if the community works together, then schools can succeed in providing world-class education. Teachers, therefore, need partners who can help them create world-class schools and communities of learners.
Effective educators are able to make use of community resources to support student learning. Some partners come from the community, such as the library and local businesses, along with museums and universities. Effective educators form long-term and collaborative relationships with these organizations to help schools set the vision for students’ success (Delpit,
1995). However, the primary partners for effective educators are the parents. Parents must be welcomed into the schools and into the individual classrooms. They must feel as if they are part of the learning community. Many parents volunteer; effective educators will teach parents how to be functional in the classroom and at home. Effective educators will also share success and disappointment in a timely and constructive discourse with parents. They will share their concerns and joys with parents. Because effective educators have expertise in content, pedagogy, assessment, and child development, they will inform and educate parents about the changing face of schooling in today’s society, thus helping parents make informed decisions about their children (Chalker, 1998).
Teachers and administrators collaborate and share new knowledge to increase their effectiveness (Fleming & Leo, 2001). Teachers must collaborate with each other to create more effective learning opportunities, including a better learning atmosphere for students. Using all the tools at their disposal to help make those decisions—content knowledge expertise, pedagogical knowledge, and action research, they must be critical thinkers and be willing to remain open to new ideas and to listen to alternative explanations from their colleagues. This openness allows for professional collaboration that enhances the learning of all involved
(Conoley, 1989).
“If the school is to be a growth environment for children, it must be a growth environment for teachers" as well (Elliott Eisner, as cited in Holly, 1998). The main objective of professional development programs at Kent State University is to “prepare and support

10 educators to help all students achieve high standards of learning and development” (U.S.
Department of Education, 1994, p. 63774). In this context, professional development focuses on teachers as central to school reform; reflects the best research and practice in teaching, learning and leadership; and promotes problem-solving as a major teacher function. Moreover, KSU strongly believes that high quality professional development would ensure “the career-long development of teachers whose confidence, expectations, and actions influence the teaching and learning environment” (U.S. Department of Education, 1994, p. 63773), beginning with mentoring.
Mentoring is defined as “a dynamic, reciprocal relationship in a work environment between an advanced career incumbent (mentor) and a beginner (protégé) aimed at promoting the career development of both” (Healy & Weichert, 1990). However, for a mentoring relationship to be successful, the mentor must be warm, caring, sensitive, and trustworthy
(Alleman, 1982; Sudzina et al., 1997). Furthermore, “if we expect teachers to be mentors to new or struggling teachers in their schools, we must be willing to provide them with supervised experiences and support as they develop and refine the skills required” (Allen et al., 2003).
Mentoring can make a significant difference in the teaching of a child in a supervised setting
(Allan et al. 2003). Additionally, our program takes a self-critical stance in constantly reviewing and developing ways to provide mentoring support to teacher candidates so that our mentoring process is most effective. Beginning teachers are concerned initially with professional survival: establishing personal adequacy; sorting through the curriculum, mastering teaching skills, methods and technology; and impacting the achievement of students (Yarger & Mertens, 1980).
It is therefore crucial to plan and structure professional development in such a way that it caters to various needs of beginning teachers, as well as, addressing the developmental needs of teachers throughout their careers, particularly in view of their roles as mentors to our teacher candidates (Caruso & Fawcett, 1999).
For the teacher candidate, learning to teach and learning to interact with colleagues are important needs. They grow professionally as they observe their colleagues teach, learn about exciting and worthwhile innovations and strategies, acknowledge the diversity of good ideas that different teachers bring to the profession, and make decisions about what and how they will incorporate into their own approaches (Routman, 1999). Teacher candidates work together to find the best representations of their teaching through peer analysis and critique. When novice teachers make connections with their colleagues, they form a community, thereby counteracting the isolation that pervades the teaching profession, fractionalizing programs of teaching and learning (Holmes Group, 1995). “When teachers are engaged together in thinking aloud about their work and its consequences, the results are a greater sense of professionalism and a stronger and more cohesive instructional program” (Griffin, 1991). Thus the process of collaboration with their colleagues greatly helps beginning teachers to perceive themselves as life-long learners and their school as a place where professionals can work collectively and learn collectively throughout their professional careers.
Professional collaboration is one of the most important factors that contribute to advancement of professional development. “Both pre- and in-service professional development require partnerships among schools, higher education institutions and other appropriate entities to promote inclusive learning communities of everyone who impacts students and their learning. Those within and outside schools need to work together to bring to bear the ideas, commitment and other resources that will be necessary to address important and complex educational issues in a variety of settings and for a diverse student body” (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004).

11
“In order to meet the challenges of the 21 st century, educational leaders must look to alternative methods of education. No longer can preservice teachers working in isolated college classrooms expect to be prepared to meet the needs of 21 st century learners” (Jayroe, Ball, &
Novinski, 2001). That is why NCATE (2000, 2002) standards not only emphasize the importance of technology integration but also stress the development of educational partnerships between institutions of higher learning. Through professional collaboration, KSU addresses the critical need of embedding technology within the preservice and inservice curriculums with a goal to maximize student learning and achievement.
Therefore, teacher candidates at KSU are expected to learn their content richly so that they can create engaging, learner-centered lessons that address the diverse needs of students in their classrooms, whatever those differences entail, through meaningful, reflective practice in a collaborative and collegial manner. In this way, learning is seen as a life-long endeavor for all, continually working for a more socially just world, the ideal of a democratic society.
Contributors:
Om Ahuja
Joanne Arhar
Nancy Barbour
Alicia Crowe
Martha Lash
Natasha Levinson
Averil McClelland
Teresa Rishel
Alexa Sandmann
Matthew Weinstein

REFERENCES
Alleman, E., (1982). Mentoring relationships in organizations: Behavior, personality
characteristics, and interpersonal perceptions. Unpublished dissertation. University of
Akron.
Allen, D. D., Cobb J. B., & Danger, S., (2003). Inservice teachers mentoring aspiring teachers.
Mentoring and Tutoring, 11(2), 177-182.
Angelo, T. A. (1998). Classroom assessment and research: An update on uses, approaches, and
research findings. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
12
Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2 nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Ayers, W. (1993). To teach: The journey of a teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Bloom, B.S. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Caruso, J. J., & Fawcett, M. T. (1999). Supervision in early childhood education: A
developmental perspective. New York: Teachers College Press.
Chalker, D.M. (1998). Leadership for rural schools: Lessons for all educators. Lancaster, PA:
Technomic Publishers.
Conoley, I.C. (1989). Professional communication and collaboration among educators. In A.C.
Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 245-254). New York:
Pergamon Press.
Cushner, K., McClelland, A., & Safford, P. (2006). Human diversity in education: An integrative
approach, 5 th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill .
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New
Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. NY: The Macmillan Co.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Bloomington, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
Earle, R.S., Seehafer, S., & Ostlund, M.F. (2001). Systematic reform in teacher education: Quality teachers through partnering. Teacher Education Quarterly,
14(28), 53-69.

13
Erb, T. O. (Ed.). (2001). This we believe: And now we must act. Westerville, OH:
National Middle School Association.
Fleming, G.L., & Leo, T. (2001). Issues about change principles and teachers: Continuous learners. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 7 (2).
Floden, R. E. & Meniketti, M. (2005). Research on the effects of coursework in the arts and science and in the foundations of education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner
(Eds.) Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher
education (pp. 261- 308). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental characterization. American
Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207-226
Gable, R.A., Mostert, M. P., & Tonelson, S. W. (2004). Assessing professional collaboration in schools: Knowing what works. Preventing School Failure, 48(3), 4-8.
Galassi, J.P. (2000). PDS site selection: Implications for educational reform and restructuring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA. ERIC. ED 444984.
Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.) (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge:
The construct and its implications for science education. Netherlands: Springer.
Goodlad , J., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K.A. (Eds). (1990). The moral dimensions of teaching. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Griffin, G. (1991). Interactive staff development: Using what we know. In A. Lieberman & L.
Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in the 90’s (pp. 243-258). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Healy, C.C., & Weichert, A.J. (1990). Mentoring relations: A definition to advance research and practice. Educational Research, 19(9), 17-21.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371 – 406.

Hollingsworth, S., & Sockett, H. (1994). Teacher research and educational reform. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Holly, M. L. (1998). Reconceptualizing professional development in Ohio: An illustrated
framework. Columbus, OH: Professional Development Advisory Committee of ODE.
Holly, M. L., Arhar, J. M., & Kasten, W. C. (2009). Action research for teachers: Traveling the
yellow brick road (3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
14
Holmes Group Report. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools for education. East Lansing, MI: The Holmes
Group.
Holmes Partnership (2000). Origins of the Holmes partnership [Online document]. Available: www.holmespartnership.org/origins.html.
Jayroe, T. B., Ball, K. C., & Novinski, M. R. (2001). Professional development partnerships integrating educational technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(1),
12-19.
Kohl, H. R. (1976/1986). On teaching. New York: Schocken Books.
Kohn, A. (1999). The schools our children deserve. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Leistyna, R., Woodrum, A., & Sherblom, S. A. (1996). Breaking free: The transformative power
of critical pedagogy. Reprint Series No. 27. Cambridge MA: Harvard Educational Review.
Leonard, P., & Leonard,L. J. (2001). The collaborative prescription: Remedy or reverie?
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(4), 383-399.
McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. P. (2004). Understanding by design: Professional development
workbook. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
National Council for the Accreditation of Colleges of Teachers Education (NACTE), (2000 &
2002). Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments
of education. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2002). National standards for social studies teachers.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
National Council for the Social Studies (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards
for the social studies. Washington, D.C.: Author.
National Council for the Social Studies (1992). “A vision of powerful teaching and learning in the social studies: Building social understanding and civic efficacy”. In NCSS (1994),
Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for the social studies. Washington,
D.C.: Author
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.:

15
National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation.
Accessible via http://www.nsta.org/pdfs/NCATE-NSTAStandards2003.pdf
Ormrod, J. E., & Cole, D. B. (1996). Teaching content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: A model from geographic education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 37
– 42.
Paley, V. G. (1992). You can't say you can't play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Paley, V. G. (1995). Kwanzaa and me: A teacher's story. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1995). Collaborative practitioners: Collaborative schools. Denver,
CO: Love.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design
for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Routman, R. (1999). Conversations: Strategies for teaching, learning, and evaluating.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Schön, D.: 1983, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New
York
Schowengert, R.V., Fine M. J., & Poggio, J. P. (1976). An examination of some bases of teacher satisfaction with school psychological services. Psychology in the Schools, 13, 269-275.
Sergiovanni, T. (1996). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Education Series.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Strieker, T., & Logan, K. (2001). Everybody WINS! The state education standard.
Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education.
Sudzina, M., Giebelhaus, C., & Coolican, M. (1997). Mentor or tormentor: The role of the cooperating teacher in student teacher success or failure. Action in Teacher Education,
18(4), 23-35.

16
Sullivan, W.M. (2005). Work and integrity: The crisis and promise of professionalism in America.
Stanford: Jossey-Bass
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Draft mission statement and principles of professional development. Federal Register, 59, 63773-63774.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Building bridges: The mission and principles of professional development. Achieved Information, Goals 2000. http://www.ed/gov.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Yarger, S., & Mertens, S. (1980). Testing the waters of school-based teacher education. In
Concept to guide the education of experienced teachers. Reston, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children.
Welch, M. (1998). Collaboration: Staying on the bandwagon. Journal of Teacher Education,
49(1), 26-37.
Wenger, R. D. (1979). Teachers ’ response to collaborative consultation. Psychology in the
Schools. 16, 127-131.
Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider's view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 190- 204.
Wilson, S.M., Shulman, L.S., & Richert, A. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing: Rep- resentations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’
thinking (pp. 104–124). Sussex, England: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.