Elementary and Secondary Education:
Data Analysis for 33-Credit Portfolio Checkpoint Spring 2005
March, 2005
Letters were sent to 27 candidates who had completed 18 credits and 12 candidates who
had completed 33 credits in the School of Education Master’s Programs in Elementary or
Secondary Education inviting their participation in this checkpoint. Given the recent
changes to our program, we realized that these students had not participated in many, if
any, of the new educational experiences designed to enhance their understanding of our
Vision statement:
“to build with graduate students, and their schools and corporations, ScholarPractitioner learning communities for engaging in a democratic and diverse
society."
However, we created the goals of gathering baseline data on our graduates as well as
evaluating the procedures for identifying and notifying students.
Of the 39 letters sent, 3 completed all assignments and met with faculty. While we did
receive some responses back about the request to participate (e.g., too busy), many
candidates just did not respond. One response highlighted a flaw in our system for
identifying eligible candidates. This particular student said that she would be willing to
participate in the checkpoint, but wondered what meaningful data she could provide
given that she graduated from the program over 10 years prior. This response led to the
discovery that our queries were generating lists of students whom had already graduated.
We are taking steps to correct this problem.
As the letter stated, we requested that the candidates reflect on their growth towards the
Vision Statement (e.g, divided into 3 components: growth as a Scholar-Practitioner,
engagement as a learning community, and contributions to a democratic and diverse
society) and on their use of technology as related to the Conceptual Framework (CF).
Vision Statement
Scholar-Practitioner
Candidates often explained their understanding of scholar-practitioner by providing
examples of how they used or are using research as teachers. For example, a candidate
commented that she was a member of her school’s improvement plan committee. The
process involved researching the weaknesses of the school and identifying best practices
to remediate them. She stated, “Reading countless articles and researching many topics
while doing my coursework at IPFW was invaluable to this project. I felt I already had a
firm grasp on many of the strategies that were suggested in our research.” Her colleague
expressed similar feelings when she stated, “Through numerous opportunities I have in
UAS Subcommittee: Swim, Agness, Moss, Murphey
research and inquiry classes, I feel that I am better equip[ped] to assist my school and
staff in further pursuits to maintain a positive and successful learning environment.”
The last candidate commented on how the program helped her with “becoming proficient
in action research, seeing the value of action research, and [gaining a] fuller
understanding of curriculum development.”
Conclusion: While the candidates clearly understood the importance of using research to
inform their teaching, their responses indicated a beginning level of knowledge.
However, their performance may be related to the directions they were given. We were
expecting specific examples of how they use research in their daily lives as teachers. We
may need to consider revising the directions so that these expectations are clear to the
students. On the other hand, this level of performance was expected because they have
not participated in the revised program with a scholar-practitioner focus and it confirmed
our desire to infuse this concept more thoroughly throughout the programs. Our creation
of the course, F500 Teaching, Leading, and Learning, seems to directly address their
weaknesses in understanding our scholar-practitioner model.
Learning Communities
The Master’s candidates spoke about elementary students, colleagues, professors, and
other teachers in their discussions of learning communities. They believed that
completing their degree has helped them with their interactions in their communities. For
example, they are role models for elementary students and can answer “questions about
what it is like in college”, and they have learned more about their students’ backgrounds
and what can be done “to better assist and guide students in their academic, emotional,
and social progress.” Sharing their students’ and their own work with colleagues and
professors afforded them deeper levels of analysis and reflection than if they were
working independently. These experiences have encouraged them to value multiple
perspectives. “The mere opportunity to engage in community activities and various
cultural programs, allow professionals to see the world outside their community. These
are the moments that I have had a better understanding of my own students’ needs.” One
student listed presenting a paper at a conference as evidence of expanding her learning
community to include those outside of the school/district.
Conclusion: The notion of community of learners appears to be one that students can
easily grasp. However, we would like to continue developing their understanding of
“teachers as educational leaders” by supporting their scholarly inquiry into their work and
providing forums for disseminating it. Doing this would serve to increase their visibility
in the greater educational community as scholar-practitioners.
Democratic and Diverse Society
One candidate commented on how her behavior “demonstrated what it is to be a good
upstanding citizen in our wonderful United States of America.” The other two candidates
did not directly address democracy in their responses. However, one candidate
UAS Subcommittee: Swim, Agness, Moss, Murphey
commented on how, through reflection, she has “gained a greater awareness of how my
interpretations, actions, and opinions directly affect others, more importantly, my
students.” This reflection may be communicating that the student is concerned about
both democracy and diversity when interacting with students; although, that is not
directly stated and would be an interpretation on our part.
Regarding diversity, candidates commented that they have gained an “understanding [of]
the lives and needs of a diverse community,” how to “provide students with multicultural experiences,” and how “adults are more bias[ed] than children.” One candidate
commented that her experience at IPFW opened her eyes to other points of view, but not
other cultures. She attributed this to a lack of racial and gender diversity in her classes
(e.g., predominately white females). Having professors from diverse backgrounds was
viewed as positive.
Conclusion: Similarly to the first component, the candidates focused their discussions
around general statements, rather than specific examples for both democracy and
diversity, leading us to conclude that changes in assignment directions are warranted.
This conclusion is particularly strong for democracy because this has been a component
of the CF since its inception. Other evidence we have gathered, formally and informally,
suggests that students do have a fairly strong understanding of democracy in educational
settings. Of course, creating artifact reflections that require students to reflect on the six
components of the CF, as is now required in our UAS, coupled with a more direct focus
on those ideas in F500 Teaching, Leading, and Learning, should serve to further
strengthen this area.
Regarding diversity, we knew while doing the program revisions that this was an area in
need of great attention, but these data provide evidence to the depth. Including 30 hours
of Service Learning for Diversity in the revised programs appears to be a very wise
decision on our part. These data should provide a baseline from which to evaluate
student performance in the revised program.
Technology Reflection (using Conceptual Framework)
In general, the candidates provided very inconsistent evidence of their abilities to connect
their use of technology with the CF. The candidates were able to clearly articulate how
the use of technology with the children addresses the first three components of the CF.
They all switched to their own personal knowledge, experience, and leadership regarding
technology for the last three components. Examples of responses are presented in the
following sections.
Democracy and Community
“Technology in the classroom gives each student the opportunity to see beyond their own
personal lives. As I use the internet in my class activities, my students are aware of other
peoples’ cultures, morals, and ideas around the world. Students become [in tune] with
others and begin to become more culturally diverse, and knowledge about others in the
world is heightened.”
UAS Subcommittee: Swim, Agness, Moss, Murphey
Habits of Mind
“Students and teachers must constantly question and reflect in order to become life long
learners. Using various digital pictures and videos, students have had the opportunity to
start using critical thinking skills to assess their own learning. Students are now a partner
in their own learning.”
Pedagogy
“Computer applications lend themselves well to multiple approaches to the same
outcomes. There are usually several ways in which to perform a particular action, [so] …
I try to explain things in at least two different ways…. This leads to [less] remediation
and takes [less] time away from other standards that I need to cover in a particular
quarter.”
Knowledge
“[I] download professional articles to stay current in research and best practices.”
Experience
One candidate indicated that she created “Digital Jeopardy in various subject areas to use
as a review for students.” Thus, the students were able to use technology as a tool for
providing additional learning experiences.
Leadership
“My use of technology has made me a leader in my school. I have been consulted several
times or asked to create a document because I have the knowledge to do so.”
Conclusions: The revisions made to the Advanced Programs in Elementary and
Secondary Education, during the Program Review process in 2003-2004 should address
the shortcomings of these responses. Introducing the CF and technology log in the first
course, F500 Teaching, Leading, and Learning and checking progress at two checkpoints
should assist students with making better connections between their use of technology
and the CF. We now realize that having the candidates keep a log of their technology use
in university courses demonstrates the skills they are gaining for use in educational
settings. However, it appears that we may need to create another log for recording their
actual use of technology with students. This will afford them a record of their use and
reflections on how using technology with the students helped them to gain a deeper
understanding of the CF components.
UAS Subcommittee: Swim, Agness, Moss, Murphey