NCATE Web
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE EDUCATOR PREPARATION PROGRAM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CANDIDATE OUTCOMES AND PROFICIENCIES | TEXAS BEGINNING EDUCATOR SUPPORT SYSTEM (TxBESS) |
|
Outcome 1: As reflective practitioners, candidates will demonstrate their knowledge of the content of disciplines appropriately applied to the age and level of the students they teach to ensure the implementation of effective instruction and successful development of all students. Specifically, candidates at Angelo State demonstrate these proficiencies:
|
Standard 1a: |
| CANDIDATE OUTCOMES AND PROFICIENCIES | TEXAS BEGINNING EDUCATOR SUPPORT SYSTEM (TxBESS) |
|
Outcome 2: As reflective practitioners, candidates will demonstrate their knowledge of pedagogical skills applied to the development of effective instruction of all students. Specifically, candidates at Angelo State demonstrate these proficiencies:
|
Standard 1a:
Standard 1c:
Standard 1d:
Standard 1f:
Standard 2d:
Standard 3a:
Standard 3d: |
| CANDIDATE OUTCOMES AND PROFICIENCIES | TEXAS BEGINNING EDUCATOR SUPPORT SYSTEM (TxBESS) |
|
Outcome 3: As reflective practitioners, candidates will demonstrate commitment to and performance of professional dispositions, appropriately applied in all aspects of personal and educational endeavors. Specifically, candidates at Angelo State demonstrate these proficiencies: Professionalism
Teaching Qualities
Relationships with Others
Professional Development
(Adapted from the University of North Carolina, Charlotte) |
Standard 2a:
Standard 3a:
Standard 3e:
Standard 4a:
Standard 4d:
Standard 4e:
Standard 4f:
Standard 2a:
Standard 3a:
Standard 3e:
Standard 4a:
Standard 4d:
Standard 4e:
Standard 4f: |
| CANDIDATE OUTCOMES AND PROFICIENCIES | TEXAS BEGINNING EDUCATOR SUPPORT SYSTEM (TxBESS) |
|
Outcome 4: As reflective practitioners, candidates will demonstrate ability to implement defendable instructional decisions and technology applications leading to effective teaching and learning. Specifically, candidates at Angelo State demonstrate these proficiencies:
|
Standard 1e:
Standard 1f:
Standard 2b:
Standard 2c:
Standard 2e:
Standard 4a: |
| CANDIDATE OUTCOMES AND PROFICIENCIES | TEXAS BEGINNING EDUCATOR SUPPORT SYSTEM (TxBESS) |
|
Outcome 5: As reflective practitioners, candidates will embrace active, engaged, student-centered learning. Specifically, candidates at Angelo State demonstrate these proficiencies:
|
Standard 1b:
Standard 2d:
Standard 3a:
Standard 3b:
Standard 3c:
Standard 3d:
Standard 3e: |
| CANDIDATE OUTCOMES AND PROFICIENCIES | TEXAS BEGINNING EDUCATOR SUPPORT SYSTEM (TxBESS) |
|
Outcome 6: As reflective practitioners, candidates will implement culturally relevant and responsive teaching addressing the ever changing developmental and educational needs of diverse students, families, and society in partnership with schools and communities. Specifically, candidates at Angelo State demonstrate these proficiencies:
|
Standard 1b:
Standard 1c:
Standard 2a:
Standard 2b:
Standard 3a:
Standard 4c: |
4.5 Unit Assessment System
Angelo State University has developed an assessment system for the continuous assessment of its candidates and to measure the effectiveness of its Educator Preparation Program. This commitment to continuous assessment of progress and proficiency is demonstrated in a variety of ways and at various points in a candidate's program of study. Stakeholders can provide continuous guidance, mediation, and intervention for candidates by measuring knowledge, skills, and dispositions during the course of their programs.
Individual program areas have developed uniform assessments to augment the data already available for the continuous improvement of the Educator Preparation Program. Examples of these data are performance in capstone courses, employer surveys, or graduate follow-up surveys. Multiple measures ensure a comprehensive assessment of what candidates know and how the program contributes to their performance in the classroom (Darling-Hammond, 2006).
The Educator Preparation Program has five basic steps toward certification with different assessments and data collection at each of point in the system. Progress toward graduation and recommendation for certification are monitored at each step. Angelo State has the following paths leading to certification: Initial certification, Post-baccalaureate initial certification, Certification for Other School Personnel, and Post-Master's specialized certification. In this section, the steps leading toward recommendation for initial certification are delineated. A chart representing the steps and assessments leading to initial certification recommendation is at the end of this section. The steps for other program categories are also contained in the narrative explanation.
University students and Educator Preparation Program Candidates are encouraged to use the Student Handbook and the Educator Preparation Program Student Handbook as references for information, policy, and procedures, especially related to assistance, support, and appeals.
Initial Certification for Baccalaureate Candidates
Step 1: Admission to the Educator Preparation Program
Students at Angelo State University who wish to pursue Educator Preparation begin the process at the completion of 60 undergraduate semester credit hours. The process to complete the first step to certification is meeting preadmission requirements, completing the application to enter the Educator Preparation Program, and being admitted as a candidate. Students become candidates once they have completed this step.
To be admitted to any Educator Preparation Program, Texas requires an assessment of basic skills and an evaluation of higher order thinking skills. Students must have an overall grade point average of 2.5 on a 4.0 scale on all college level course work. Students must meet the score requirements on state approved tests of basic skills. In addition, Angelo State students have to demonstrate reading, writing, mathematical, and oral communication skills by earning a C or better in prescribed courses. Students must also perform sufficiently well on one of the state approved tests of higher order thinking skills. Once students meet these requirements they are admitted into the Educator Preparation Program and become candidates eligible to enroll in upper division professional education course work. Students must also affirm that they will comply with the statement of commitment to professional dispositions required of all candidates in the program.
Step 2: Program Requirements
The next step in the assessment system is monitoring the candidate's progress through the preparation program. Continued development of competencies in knowledge, skills, and dispositions is assessed through candidates' experiences and achievement in their areas of preparation. Candidates are assessed in the area of planning and instruction through examination of products and skills. Dispositions are monitored by faculty observation, public school teacher evaluation, and self-reports by the candidates. All faculty and public school teacher mentors who work in the pedagogy area frequently assist students so that they can perform successfully in the areas of skills and dispositions. Candidates' products are submitted, reviewed, modified via an electronic submission support system with the final submission being archived in the electronic system.
Step 3: Internship Requirements
The Educator Preparation Program requires the candidate to perform satisfactorily in a number of field-based practica where knowledge, skills, dispositions, instructional decisions, student centered learning, and culturally responsive teaching are demonstrated. The candidate must continue to maintain the educator preparation program admission standards. Field placement occurs in a variety of diverse settings, in different schools, and at various grade levels. During these placements, the public school teacher is asked to evaluate the candidates' dispositions with regard to student learning and the candidates' interaction with other school professionals. Planning, organization, and teaching are emphasized and evaluated along dimensions of instructional decisions, student-centered learning, and culturally responsive teaching.
Step 4: Student Teaching
Another level in program assessment is for the candidate to apply, be accepted, and to student teach. Successful ongoing attention to requirements in steps 1, 2, and 3 prepare candidates to apply for the student teaching experience usually during the last semester of the program. Student teaching engages the candidates at this juncture for 15 weeks in a K-12 school setting following the same time requirements as the contracted teaching staff. Four different evaluations are conducted during student teaching. Each candidate is formally evaluated twice before the mid point in the semester and twice after, using rubrics aligned with the Texas Beginning Teacher Educator Support System (TxBESS). The TxBESS evaluation provides a systematic way to reflect upon and analyze the candidates' professional competencies and behaviors as these behaviors affect student learning. Candidates are assessed in areas addressing the implementation of appropriate content; instructional planning, preparation, and delivery, and assessment, including instructional decision-making. Monitoring, mentoring, and support are evident at this step.
Step 5: Recommendation for Certification
At the end of student teaching, candidates complete two state external examinations, one in content knowledge and one in pedagogical skills. The Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES) are aligned with content standards for each level of schooling and with the state public school curriculum, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Candidates who successfully complete these examinations and graduate from Angelo State University are eligible for recommendation to the state of Texas for a standard teaching certificate.
Denial, Remediation, and Appeal Procedure
Failure to meet minimum standards at any point of assessment results in the candidate being referred to the Teacher Education Council's Admission, Retention, and Dismissal sub-committee. Reasons for denied admission may include, but are not limited to, not meeting minimum grade point requirements, not completing prerequisite coursework, not meeting stated application and progress deadlines, failure to commit to and demonstrate candidate dispositions, or a criminal history. The committee may impose a variety of interventions or sanctions including in some cases, dismissal from the program. Numerous programs exist on the university campus for candidates who are having difficulties and need assistance in improving performance in basic skills areas, academic achievement, content area major course work, or pedagogy and field experiences. Candidates who fail to meet requirements at any step may seek assistance and advisement from program faculty, department heads of majors disciplines, the Dean of the College of Education, the Director of Field Experiences, or the Director of Certification. Candidates may appeal any decision to the Teacher Education Council's subcommittee on Admission, Retention, and Dismissal Committee.
Initial Certification for Post-Baccalaureate Candidates
Post baccalaureate individuals follow the same sequence of events as others seeking initial certification with a few exceptions. The individual has usually completed the content area required courses and is recommended for a diagnostic examination using one of the state's content tests for certification. If the individual passes that examination no further preparation is required in the content area. If the individual fails the examination then the content department analyzes the transcript, score report, and the age of the course work and recommends additional preparation. An individual certification plan is prepared with appropriate content and pedagogy requirements listed. Candidates who fulfill these requirements, pass the appropriate examinations, and complete the educator preparation program are recommended to the state for a standard teaching certificate. Pedagogy requirements for certification may be completed at either the undergraduate or graduate level.
Certification for Other School Personnel
Master's degree level certifications programs are offered for specialization as School Counselors, Principals, Reading specialists, Superintendents, and Educational Diagnosticians. Each of these programs has standards of preparation that lead to professional certification for public school personnel. The following steps describe the general procedure that can be applied to each of the programs.
Step 1: Admission
The first step is to make application and be admitted to the graduate school at Angelo State. The standards for admission may be found in the university catalog. Once admitted the candidate is directed to a program advisor who prepares a degree plan.
Step 2: Compilation of evidence demonstrating standards competence
Candidates demonstrate competence in meeting specialized state and national standards through evidence-based assessment experiences for professional school personnel. Candidates prepare, submit, and reflect upon assignments and outcomes appropriate to the certification sought. Completed elements are assessed and materials demonstrating competence are electronically stored.
Step 3: Application for a site-based practicum
At the conclusion of the candidate's program a one or two semester practicum experience is required. Once candidates have been accepted for and placed in a practicum they are supervised by school personnel and a university faculty member. Candidates are assessed on their ability to create positive environments for student learning; on their understanding of the developmental levels of students; on their ability to accommodate the diversity of students, families, and communities; and on the policy contexts of their work. Candidates are further assessed on the application of professional dispositions delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. Candidates are expected to demonstrate interactions that are consistent with the ideal of fairness and the belief that all students can learn.
Step 4: Comprehensive review
At the completion of their programs and practica, candidates complete a comprehensive review of their experiences in the graduate program. Artifacts are aligned with standards demonstrating competency. A graduate advisory committee reviews the final submission and the candidate completes an oral comprehensive presentation. Advisory committee signatures attest to the candidates' completion of the requirements.
Step 5: Certification examinations
Candidates must pass the appropriate external state examinations. Once completed and the candidates have graduated, they are recommended to the state for the appropriate certification.
Post-Master’s Level Certification
Candidates who have completed an appropriate Master's degree may apply for a professional certification plan leading to specialized certification. The steps outlined above are required for certification but foundation coursework will have already been completed at the master's level. The candidates then complete the specialized content area coursework and experiences. When candidates have completed the appropriate preparation and passed the required external examinations, they are eligible for recommendation to the state for specialized certification as a school counselor, a school principal or superintendent, a reading specialist, or an educational diagnostician.
Assessing Candidate Dispositions
Candidates know the basis for the assessment of their performance in the Educator Preparation Program at Angelo State University through information communicated and demonstrated in the Educator Preparation Handbook and in individual program courses. Candidates must commit to and sign the Educator Preparation Program Candidate's Statement of Commitment Regarding Dispositions as a part of their application for admission to the program. Assessment of dispositions occurs both informally and formally in pedagogy courses and in field experiences as candidates progress through the program.
Faculty and classroom teachers provide feedback to candidates based on the assessment of their dispositions. If deemed necessary, faculty complete a "Candidate Concerns Form" if a candidate does not demonstrate or adhere to the professional dispositions expected in the program. A candidate may receive an alert in any Educator Preparation Program course, especially in courses with accompanying field experiences. A committee of program faculty reviews any circumstance where a candidate fails to meet criteria and arranges a conference with the individual candidate. The committee resolves the concerns with the candidate or submits its information to the appropriate department head and/or dean for further action, including program dismissal deemed necessary.
The Unit is held accountable by the state of Texas. The Assessment System for Educator Preparation evaluates each teacher certification program annually. The program is evaluated by overall pass rate by all test takers, gender, and ethnicity with different pass rates required for initial tests takers and final test takers. In addition, each test is analyzed for its pass rate. Accreditation is by unit and by test. Failure to meet the established criteria can result in penalties from requiring a plan for program change to loss of the University’s ability to recommend candidates for certification. The state also monitors the overall structure of the program, the delivery of the program, and the assessment used within the program.
The Angelo State University faculty supports our dynamic Educator Preparation Program with high expectations for all learners. Candidates are challenged to integrate content knowledge, pedagogical skills, professional dispositions, instructional decision-making, student-centered learning, and culturally relevant and responsive teaching to become effective practitioners in diverse learning communities. The Educator Preparation Program at Angelo State is preparing:
ASSESSMENT POINTS AND TYPES OF ASSESSMENTS
| Steps to Certification |
Candidate
|
Proficiencies | ||||
|
|
Knowledge
|
Skills
|
Dispositions
|
Instructional Decisions
|
Student Centered Learning
|
Culturally Responsive Teaching
|
|
Step 1. Admission to the Educator Preparation Program |
||||||
| Basic Skills Test | State approved tests scores | Basic reading, math, writing | ||||
| Reading Competency | Complete two lower level history or government courses with a C or better | |||||
| Mathematics | Complete a college level mathematics course with a C or better | |||||
| Oral Communication | Complete a college level public speaking course with a C or better | |||||
| Written Communication | Complete college level English courses that emphasize writing with a C or better | |||||
| Critical Thinking | State approved test | |||||
| GPA>2.50 out of 4.00 | College Level Skills | |||||
| Disposition Statement | Read and signed agreement | |||||
| Failure to meet criteria, student receives assistance from | Academic Advisor or Director of Field Experiences | Academic Advisor or Director of Field Experiences | Director of Field Experiences | |||
| Steps to Certification | Candidate | Proficiencies | ||||
|
|
Knowledge
|
Skills
|
Dispositions
|
Instructional Decisions
|
Student Centered Learning
|
Culturally Responsive Teaching
|
| Step 2. Program Requirements | ||||||
| All content coursework | GPA>2.50 | C or better grade | ||||
| All pedagogy coursework | GPA>2.50 | C or better grade | ||||
| All other coursework | GPA>2.50 | C or better grade | ||||
| Candidate Behavior | ||||||
|
a. Self Evaluation |
Checklist | |||||
|
b. Teacher Evaluation |
Rubric | |||||
|
c. Faculty Evaluation |
Checklist | |||||
| Planning | Rubric | Rubric | Rubric | |||
| Failure to meet criteria, candidate receives assistance from | Academic Advisor or Director of Field Experiences | Academic Advisor or Director of Field Experiences | Faculty Review Committee | Instructor- remediation or repeat course | Instructor- remediation or repeat course | Instructor- remediation or repeat course |
| Steps to Certification | Candidate | Proficiencies | ||||
|
|
Knowledge
|
Skills
|
Dispositions
|
Instructional Decisions
|
Student Centered Learning
|
Culturally Responsive Teaching
|
| Step 3. Internship Requirements | ||||||
| Admission Requirements | ||||||
|
a. All content coursework |
GPA>2.50 | C or better grade | ||||
|
b. All pedagogy coursework |
GPA>2.50 | C or better grade | ||||
|
c. All other coursework |
GPA>2.50 | C or better grade | ||||
| Teaching | Rubric | Rubric | Rubric | Rubric | ||
| Observations in Diverse Settings | Rubric | Rubric | Rubric | Rubric | ||
| Failure to meet criteria, candidate receives assistance from | Academic Advisor or Director of Field Experiences | Academic Advisor or Director of Field Experiences | Faculty Review Committee | Instructor- remediation or repeat course | Instructor- remediation or repeat course | Instructor- remediation or repeat course |
| Steps to Certification | Candidate | Proficiencies | ||||
|
|
Knowledge
|
Skills
|
Dispositions
|
Instructional Decisions
|
Student Centered Learning
|
Culturally Responsive Teaching
|
| Step 4. Student Teaching | ||||||
| Admission Requirements | ||||||
|
a. All content coursework |
GPA>2.50 | C or better grade | ||||
|
b. All pedagogy coursework |
GPA>2.50 | C or better grade | ||||
|
c. All other coursework |
GPA>2.50 | C or better grade | ||||
| Failure to meet criteria, candidate receives assistance from | Academic Advisor or Director of Field Experiences | Academic Advisor or Director of Field Experiences | ||||
| TxBESS Framework | Rubric | Rubric | Rubric | Rubric | ||
| Evaluation of Content Knowledge | Department Form | Department Form | ||||
| Effects on Student Learning - Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) Portfolio | Rubric | Rubric | Rubric | Rubric | ||
| Professionalism/ Dispositions | Rubric | Rubric | Rubric | Rubric | ||
| Failure to meet criteria, candidate receives assistance from | Department Head or Director of Field Experiences Advisement | University Supervisor or Director of Field Experiences | University Supervisor or Director of Field Experiences | University Supervisor or Director of Field Experiences | University Supervisor or Director of Field Experiences | University Supervisor or Director of Field Experiences |
| Steps to Certification | Candidate | Proficiencies | ||||
|
|
Knowledge
|
Skills
|
Dispositions
|
Instructional Decisions
|
Student Centered Learning
|
Culturally Responsive Teaching
|
| Step 5. Certification | ||||||
| Content Knowledge | TExES (State Assessment) | |||||
| MFAT or other department assessment | ||||||
| Pedagogy Knowledge | TExES (State Assessment) | |||||
| Graduated | Met all degree requirements | |||||
| Failure to meet criteria | Remediation by departments | |||||
| Supplementary Test Preparation Materials | ||||||
References
Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life- span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23, 611- 626.
Banks, J. A. (2006). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching, 5E. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Bergan, D. (2008). Human development: Traditional and contemporary theories. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Berk, L. E. & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children's learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education. Washington DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Berry, B. (2003). What it means to be a "highly qualified teacher". Southeast Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved from: www.teachingquality.org
Bloom, B. (1964). Taxonomy of education objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York, NY: Longman.
Boyer, E. L. (1995). The basic school: A community for learning. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bracey, G. W. (2007, October). The first time 'everything changed': The 17th Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 119-136.
Bredekamp, S. & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.) (1995). Reaching potentials: Transforming early childhood curriculum and assessment (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
Bredekamp, S. (2008). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
Brooks, M. G. & Brooks, J. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Brooks, M. G. & Brooks, J. G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 18.
Broughton, M. L. & Wishon, P. M. (1999, 2008). Beliefs about student development. University of Northern Colorado: College of Education: Author.
Chickering. A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. The Wingspread Journal, 9 (2), 1-4.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cruickshank, D. R., Jenkins, D. B., and Metcalf, K. K. (2003). The act of teaching. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994, March). Will 21st century schools really be different? Virginia Journal of Education, 87, 6-13.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 6-11.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 120-138.
DeVries, R. & Kohlberg, L. (1987). Constructivist early education: Overview and comparison with other programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), xii.
Dewey, J. (1943). The child and curriculum: The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1975). Moral principles in education. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Diez, M. E. (2006). Assessing dispositions: Five principles to guide practice. In H. Sockett (Ed.), Teacher dispositions: Building a teacher education framework of moral standards (pp. 49-68). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE).
Eble, K. (1988). The craft of teaching. 2E, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Eisner, E. (2006). The satisfactions of teaching. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 44-46.
Fullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.
Glenn, R. E. (2007). Teaching for excellence. Spartanburg, SC: Author.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hasenstab. J. & Wilson, C. C. (1989). Training the teacher as champion. Performance Learning Systems, Inc.: Author.
Harris Hall, G. E. (2005). Characteristics of an effective teacher. Richmond, VA: Center for Teaching Excellence, Virginia Commonwealth University. Author.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2002). Preparing teachers to use technology. Eugene, OR: Author.
Kamii, C. (Ed.). (1990). Achievement testing in the early grades: The games grown-ups play. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
Kohn, A. (1999). The schools our children deserve. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Kozol, J. (2007, September). Letters to a young teacher. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(1), 8-20.
Kostelnik, M. J., Soderman, A. K., and Whiren, A. P. (2007). Developmentally appropriate curriculum: Best practices in early childhood education. 4E. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Kronowitz, E. L. (2008). The teacher's guide to success. Boston, MA: Pearson A. B. Longman.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Moore, C. E. (1993, May). Restructured schools: How, why do they work? NASSP Bulletin, 77(553), 64-69.
Noddings, N. (1982). Caring. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 3(2), 139-148.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Noddings, N. (1994). Postmodern musings on pedagogical uses of the personal. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 26(4), 355-360.
Norlander-Case, K. A., Reagan, T. G., and Case, C. W. (1999). The professional teacher: The preparation and nurturance of the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Oakes, J. & Lipton, M. (1999). Teaching to change the world. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Pajares, M. F. (1992) Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy concept. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
Pang, V. O. (2005). Multicultural education: A caring-centered reflective approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Piaget, J. (1966). The psychology of intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Company.
Popham, W. J. (2000). Modern education measurement: Practical guidelines for education leaders. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can make change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, D. C.: Economic Policy Institute.
Rike, C. J. & Sharp, K. L. (2008). Assessing pre-service teachers' dispositions: A critical dimension of professional preparation, Childhood Education, 150-153.
Rothstein-Fisch, C. & Trumbull, E. (2008). Managing diverse classrooms: How to build on students' cultural strengths. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Ryan, K. (2003). Those who can, teach, 10E. New York, NY: Houghton-Mifflin.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations for the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Stronge, J. H. (2007). Qualities of effective teachers. 2E. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Texas State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC). (2005). Texas Beginning Educator Support System: Framework. Austin, TX: Author.
Thompson, S., Greer, J. G. and Greer, B. B. (2004). Highly qualified for successful teaching: Characteristics every teacher should possess. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis: Author.
Tomlinson , C. A. & McTiche, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walls, R. T., Nardi, A. H., vonMinden, A. M. and Hoffman, N. (2002). The characteristics of effective and ineffective teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(1), 39-48.
Webb, J. D., Metha, A. and Jordan, K. F. (2007). Foundations of American education, 5E. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Wong, H. K. & Wong, R. T. (2004). The first days of school: How to be an effective teacher. Author.
York, S. (2003). Roots and wings. (Revised). St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press (Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall).9/10/08