2006 NCATE

The Conceptual Framework of the
Gustavus Teacher Education Program

Prepared for the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education
Updated in 2003

The conceptual framework undergirds the Gustavus Teacher Education Program. Initial structuring of the framework was based on the five attributes of a teacher education program knowledge base presented by Galluzzo and Pankratz (1991). This redesign was based on:
1) a set of beliefs that have guided the redesign process, (philosophy)
2) an organizing theme and conceptual framework,
3) program outcomes and complete evaluation procedures and processes which guide feedback to the student and the program,
4) a professional bibliography of source documents that contains essential knowledge for graduates plus works critical to the program and framework, and
5) the program model emerging from redesign efforts.

As the program has evolved under this framework we have restated these principles using the following NCATE structural elements: (NCATE Professional Standards, p.12)

• the vision and mission of the institution and unit;
• the unit’s philosophy, purposes, and goals;
• knowledge bases, including theories, research, the wisdom of practice, and education policies;
• candidate proficiencies aligned with the expectations in professional, state, and institutional standards;
• the system by which candidate performance is regularly assessed.
  

Philosophy
The conceptual framework is grounded in a belief that learning is largely constructivist, that is, the learner constructs knowledge based upon background knowledge, cultural frames of reference, experience, instructional influences, and reflective processes. Action, performance, or experience is then central to learning [and teaching]. These beliefs are founded in Dewey (1938) [a cycle of impulse, observation, knowledge, judgment, and purpose] and Kolb (1984) [a cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation].


Knowledge Base:
Theories, Research, Wisdom of Practice, Educational Policies

To simplify and focus the work of the education department, the conceptual framework is communicated in a three-part cycle of learning -- knowledge > experience > reflection. This three-part model based upon contextualized experience, reflection and analysis, and research and theory development is also supported by the works of Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989), Gold (1986), and Smith (1990). In addition, the three-part cycle expresses not just a learning theory, but also a model of ethical and moral decision-making -- orchestrating the success of learners in an informed and principled way. This cycle of learning applies to the work in teacher preparation of the Gustavus Education Department; it is a process that continuously changes through experience, reflection, and reconceptualization and is organized under the theme of “teaching as principled practice.” (See Education Vision Appendix A and Professional Bibliography Appendix B)

Purpose

Teacher education programs need a focus or organizing theme that reflects the ultimate purpose of the program. Like the set of beliefs [our vision statement] the organizing theme is a product of faculty collaboration. An organizing theme represents the essence of the set of belief statements, or as Short (1987) labeled it, “a unifying concept”. The organizing theme is the key idea that turns a collection of courses into a coherent program. (Galluzo & Pankratz, 1991)

The Gustavus Department of Education has chosen as its organizing theme “teaching as principled practice”. Grossman (1990) discussed the concept of “teaching as principled practice” in her description of an English method’s class instructor, his strategies in the classroom, and the philosophy that undergirded his classroom practices. She depicts principled practice as:

. . . the need for teachers to understand the reasons behind their instructional choices, to be able to explain why they do what they do. “Principled practice” implies that while there are no absolute answers or sure solutions to most of the dilemmas of teaching, teachers must try to connect their choice of instructional activities to their under-standing of the underlying purposes for the teaching of English. (Grossman, 1990, p. 121)

Like the English teacher featured by Grossman, we seek to foster in prospective teachers the ability to explain why they do what they do in the classroom. We would like them to exit our program with an ability to defend their instructional choices on the basis of pedagogical, moral, and ethical grounds. It is our goal to help them realize that we do not (nor does anyone else) possess “the correct answer” for their teaching dilemmas and challenges. Instead we strive to help them acquire the skills of analysis and reflection, a broad knowledge base, and an array of experiences that will enable them to articulate and examine their own beliefs about teaching and learning, as well as to set those beliefs into action. Like Tom (1984), we hold that teaching is not simply a technical enterprise, with a discrete set of skills to be acquired, but rather it contains a moral (and ethical we would add) basis as well.

We see three components contributing to and informing “principled practice”: 1) our past, present, and imagined experiences, both inside and outside the classroom; 2) our reflection on and analysis of our experiences, knowledge, and practices; and 3) our conceptualization of knowledge/truth including that regarding the research on teaching/learning and theories of teaching/learning. Following the work of Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989), we hold that knowledge/cognition (and activity) is situated in a culture (in this case most likely schools) which has its own set of values and ways of utilizing the knowledge or activities a participant brings to the setting.

Our application of the ideas of Brown, Collins, and Duguid (as well as those of Smith, 1990) are best summarized in the following model:

The three components (know and believe, experience, and reflection and analysis) interact (and in reality are inseparable) with each other in a continual process to create or determine our classroom practices. As Brown et al. note, “A concept, for example, will continually evolve with each new occasion of use because new situations, negotiations, and activities inevitably recast it in a new, more densely textured form” (p. 33). Likewise, classroom practices will evolve as a student’s knowledge base of theories and research is expanded through coursework, conferences, professional reading, etc.; tested in the crucible of the classroom, school, or some other setting; and examined and reflected on in terms of their principles and desired outcomes.

Our job as teacher educators is to insure that all three components of “principled practice” are engaged in by our prospective teachers, and that the principles held highest and used for the basis of judgment of outcomes and experiences are those outlined in foundational documents and in program curriculum.

Goals
This experiential and reflective model of improvement captures the process of learning, teaching, program management, and redesign. It is shaped and characterized by the nine goals listed below. The program outcomes and evaluation procedures and processes, which guide feedback to the student and the program, are embedded in this model.

Gustavus pre-service teachers and teacher educators:

Know and Believe:

• The need to understand and consider the moral and ethical dimensions of teaching.
• That decisions made about teaching and learning need to be based upon subject matter knowledge and knowledge of context and pedagogy. (Grossman, 1990)
  
• That they need to rely on, and advocate for, sound liberal learning, extensive disciplinary learning, and interdisciplinary thinking.
  

Plan:

• By making teaching and learning decisions based on an understanding of the moral and ethical dimensions of teaching.
• By making decisions about teaching and learning based upon subject matter knowledge and knowledge of context and pedagogy. (Grossman, 1990)
• Experience (in education courses, or through their own interaction in a K-12 classroom):
• Sound liberal learning, extensive disciplinary learning, and interdisciplinary thinking
  
• Nurturing relationships that foster inquiry, achievement, and cooperation for all learners
  
• Inclusive and collaborative learning communities created to enrich learning and stimulate reflective analysis.
  
• Reciprocal partnerships with learners, families, communities, and colleagues.

Assess:

• By employing a variety of ongoing strategies of assessment to understand learning.
• By providing honest and complete feedback to assist in their own and their students’ learning.

Reflect and Analyze:

• Through the continual employment of ongoing strategies of assessment to understand learning.
  
• By carefully considering the intersection of knowledge, classroom events and student response
  
• By creating inclusive and collaborative learning communities to enrich learning and stimulate reflective analysis.
  

Reconceptualize

• By anticipating the complexity and inter-relatedness of student development, curriculum, and the problems and challenges faced by tomorrow’s learners.
• Through the ongoing application of new knowledge and understandings in their classroom, based on prior planning, experiences, assessment and reflection.

This theme and expanded conceptual framework (updated 8/2003) are shared in department literature and at various orientation points during initial advising, admission orientation, at the celebration/orientation for newly admitted students, and during initial meetings of education courses. More importantly, the department crafts learning experiences as well as procedures and policies that model the knowledge base and beliefs expressed in the conceptual framework.

Framework References:

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Galluzo, G., & Pankratz, R. (1991). Five attributes of a teacher education program knowledge base. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 7-14.

Grossman, P.(1990). The Making of a Teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hoban, G. (1999). Using a reflective framework for experiential education in teacher education classes. Journal of Experiential Education, 22(2), 104-111.

Smith, F. (1990). To Think. New York: Teachers College Press.

Tom (1984). Teaching as a Moral Craft. New York: Longman.

Yost, D. S.; Sentner, S. M.; & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39-49.

Zembal-Saul, C.; Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Influences of guided cycles of planning, teaching, and reflection on prospective elementary teachers’ science content representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4) 318-339.











NCATE Unit Standards
As Viewed Through the Gustavus Conceptual Framework


I. Candidate Performance
There is a story -- whether true or myth, it is characteristic of him -- that when Thomas Edison was working on improving his first light bulb, he handed a finished bulb to a young helper, who nervously carried it upstairs, step by step. At the last moment, the boy dropped it. The whole team had to work another 24 hours to make another bulb. Edison looked around, then handed it to the same boy. The gesture probably changed the boy’s life. Edison knew that more than the bulb was at stake. (Newton, 1989).

Like Edison, we teacher educators at Gustavus Adolphus College know we have the power to greatly influence lives, to make a difference. This is the power all teachers possess -- the power to kindle the fire of creativity, and the power to extinguish it; the power to make the classroom a safe, secure and friendly place, and the power to make it a nightmare; the power to develop in learners the attitudes of acceptance and appreciation of differences, and the power to reinforce existing stereotypes; the power to begin teaching persons from where they start and take them further, and the power to frustrate them and discourage them from learning.


Standard I: Candidate Knowledge, Skills and Disposition
We acknowledge the powers that we, and our graduates, possess and seek to develop teachers who will create classrooms that are characterized (in no particular order) by
• inclusive, multi-cultural, gender-fair curriculum that is also sensitive to students with disabilities
• sound ethical and moral decision-making
• educational practices/pedagogy backed by research and the “wisdom of practice”
• a view of learning as a life-long process
• provisions for mainstreamed, special needs learners
• an emphasis on group problem solving and active learning experiences
• a climate that is caring and nurturing of each individual
• the advancement of knowledge and understanding in various content areas and student academic success.

Connection to conceptual framework:
Students’ course work (including students journals in Edu 351, . . . self reflection of videotaped experiences, ) reflects the model as they are provided opportunities to gain knowledge, to apply that knowledge in class and practicum experiences and to reflect on what they have learned in order to continue their professional growth and development.



Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
The definition of effective teaching that focuses the work of students and faculty in the program is delineated by mandated Minnesota Standards of Effective Practice (largely the INTASC Standards with some additional Minnesota-specific standards) as interpreted by the Gustavus program using knowledge of and belief about best practice (as expressed in program goals/emphases). The Gustavus Conceptual framework has guided us in determining the ways that our students and faculty will accomplish these standards of effective practice. The learning is referenced to the standards in syllabi as well as specific assessments, and is measured by criteria that have been created and are continually refined by Gustavus faculty in collaboration with students and educator partners. Performance assessments, evaluation of teaching episodes across the program with aligned criteria, portfolio development, and a variety of self-evaluative processes inform the students and faculty about growth and teaching competence. In addition, we are exploring and experimenting with two specific models of evaluating the teaching of our student teachers and graduates by assessing the learning of their K-12 students [see the program’s “Assessment of Candidate Competence” document].
Students move through the program in cohort groups that are encouraged and instructed to reflect together about experience and provide feedback to one another openly. Students reflect in journals, in e-mail class bulletin board discussions, peer editing, within the process of portfolio construction, and in course end-conferencing and program exit interviews. Assessment systems, both summative at gates and formative across the program, require self-assessment. Students grow comfortable and capable in providing evidence of their learning and their capability – something we call “evidencing the standards”. The intimacy of a program our size allows us to know our students well enough to seamlessly intervene with students on their goal areas. Finally, we use cognitive coaching supervision techniques (reflective questioning, collaborative consultation) that require student reflection and principled decision-making.)

Portfolio process


II. Unit Capacity
The department is quite engaged in research, school partnership work, and community service. We discuss the contributions that we make as well as the benefits of continuing to learn in this way. Sharing these experiences and openly reflecting about our teaching demonstrates our commitment to experiential learning.

Standard 3: Field Experience and Clinical Practice
Students are engaged in school experiences across their program at Gustavus. There are several visitations and practicum experiences as a part of classes, a minimum of one required community-based service learning experience, and two required student teaching placements. In addition students frequently are engaged in simulation exercises during course time. The department facilitates our students as they seek additional service work with children and youth as well as summer employment that will expand the knowledge and experiential base of our preservice teachers. Elementary education students have a minimum of 326 required hours of field experience prior to student teaching, and secondary/K-12 candidates have a minimum of 238 required hours of field experience prior to student teaching. Student teaching is a 14-week full time activity (approximately 490 hours).

Prior to and during these experiences, students receive preparation, have specific and ever-increasing responsibilities, and are closely supervised by both a college supervisor and a cooperating teacher. We place students in partnership districts where we employ several strategies to assure that the cooperating teachers are strong and hold beliefs and use strategies that are aligned to the Gustavus program [St. Peter, Shakopee, Minneapolis, etc.]. We have rural, suburban, and urban district partners and are providing opportunities in diverse settings. We continue to develop multiple opportunities for students to travel and teach internationally.


Standard 4: Diversity
Students engage in course work and field experiences that emphasize the essential skills necessary to teach all students, while recognizing the unique learning needs of each individual child. There are several visitations and practicum experiences as a part of classes, including required service learning experiences which explore issues of diversity in a community-based setting.

The department continues to address the challenge of providing culturally diverse experiences for our students. Our student teaching placement sites include urban and suburban schools that serve culturally diverse students. Recently developed student opportunities provide immersion in both Costa Rican and Australian cultures.


Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance and Development
The department meets frequently to continuously consider our charge, our current practice, evidence about how we are doing, implications of the data for the program, and for planning. Department members are all scholarly, engaged in schools, openly reflective about their own practice, and principled about their actions and their teaching. The department includes students in advisory committees, department meetings, search committees and processes. Indeed, in all that we do, (except where legal issues of confidentiality prohibit it), our students are involved.

Many courses are team-taught, so the students have the opportunity to observe multiple models of reflective practice, open dialogue about making decisions based upon principle and research, and collaboration and negotiation. Faculty often employ “name it and explain it” strategies, explaining rationale for making specific choices. In this way the faculty teach directly the methods of principled practice.

The department has developed a program model, admission procedures, assessment procedures, partnership agreements and philosophies, foundational documents, and strategic plans for diversity and technology based upon refined understandings and beliefs about teacher preparation, ourselves, our students, and the responsibilities we hold as educators. We use inclusive and developmental processes in creating these documents and share them openly as examples of our own principled practice. We continuously review, reflect, and refine this work – again evidence of our use of the experiential learning process and principled practice.

In our courses we teach the complexities of life for learners – we teach that although development is inevitable and occasionally predictable, teaching and learning require critical and principled thought rather than simplistic recipes and responses. Accommodation for the wide variety of unique student needs also requires individual understanding. Similarly, classrooms, schools and communities are complex systems.

Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resources
Gustavus provides a rich climate and culture for the preparation of teachers. The service and service learning programs, formal programs in peace education and international education, efforts such as the option to receive general education entirely within interdisciplinary courses, a rich and full list of arts opportunities, progressive science learning options, an annual Nobel Conference, and a writing across the curriculum program all help to encourage true breadth and depth in the education of future educators. Rigorous and robust new initiatives on technology and faculty development in teaching and learning are enhancing even more the educational experience of students at Gustavus. In this context, it is important to note that teacher education has been at the heart of the mission of Gustavus since its creation. We currently are perceived as an institutional strength and contribute meaningfully to the evolution of the Gustavus experience. (Appendix: C, D, E, F)

We are an undergraduate-only program with approximately 280 teacher education students, with an even split between elementary and secondary majors. The program has a capped, selective admission process. Students learn to be professional educators in a highly experiential program that uses cohort groups, blocked schedules and team-teaching. The program provides continual mentoring, continuous formative assessment and feedback, and frequent celebration of success. Our graduates emerge as well-qualified beginning educators who are well-received by school districts and graduate schools. Our placement rates over the past few years are extremely high – near 100%.

Our philosophy and character are captured, in part, in the following two summary statements of foundational documents of the department:
• We passionately hope and work to make a difference in the lives and learning of our students, the college, the broader community, and in the education profession. Professionalism, a strong work ethic, close positive relationships with students, democratic styles, an ethic of caring and understanding, consistently high expectations, a passion for inquiry, and a healthy sense of humor reveal the seriousness and the pervasiveness of this vision.
• We behave in ways that are principled and teach our students to do so as well. We choose to conduct our program based on theory and research, moral and ethical principles, experience, and reflective analysis. This principled practice is quite intentional.

Students describe us as being approachable, available, caring, responsible, progressive, intelligent, and fair. Our standards are quite rigorous. Our teaching is grounded in research and constructivist theory. We use performance assessment procedures, processes to encourage reflection and informed self-evaluation, and aligned methods of evaluating teaching practice across a series of increasingly demanding experiences with children and youth.

We are a department that is itself continually reflective and changing, in part because our world dictates that we must always grow and change. We are succeeding with our students. We philosophically fit together. We are relevant and important to the campus community. We are vitally important to our district partners and the broader PreK-16 educational community.

Newton, J. D., (1989). Uncommon friends: Life with Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, Alexis Carrel, and Charles Lindbergh. New York: Harcourt .


Appendix A

Department of Education Statement of Vision


Our task of creating classrooms for the future is not an easy one, but it is a critical one, for children are precious and hold the keys to the survival and the well-being of this planet. They are indeed our future.

How then do we go about the task of educating future teachers to be principled practitioners who access knowledge, plan based on that knowledge, apply their plan, assess its impact, reflect on student learning and use that reflection to reconceptualize their on-going teaching practice? To accomplish this task the education faculty engage in the following:

• modeling for our students the skills and attitudes of inclusiveness and collaboration we wish them to possess;
• encouraging our students to develop the mental, physical, and emotional habits necessary for a healthy self-esteem and lifestyle, as well as displaying those ourselves
• providing opportunities for them to discover and demonstrate the pedagogical principles and content knowledge needed to become effective, caring teachers;
• giving them the opportunity to observe, participate in, and reflect on ma variety of K-12 teaching experiences;
• expecting that they articulate their educational philosophy and examine their own and others’ teaching practices in light of it.


Appendix B

Selected Professional Bibliography


Allington, R.A. (1996) Schools that work: Where all children Read and Write. New York: Harper Collins.

Adams, M., Bell, L.A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook. Routledge.

Adler, S.A. (1993). Teacher education: Research as reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(2), 159-167.

Border, L.L.B., & Van Note Chism, N. (Eds.) (1992). Teaching For diversity.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, Stephen D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In search for understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Casey, M.B., & Howson, P. (1993). Educating preservice students based on a problem-centered approach to teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 361-369.

Colton, A.B., & Sparks-Langer, G. (1992). Restructuring student teaching experiences. In C. Glickman (Ed.), Supervision in transition (pp. 155-167). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Damasio, A.R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: G.P. Putnam.

Daniels, H. & Bizar, M. (1998). Methods that matter: Six structures for best practice classrooms. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996, August/September). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research, policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational
Researcher 25:6, pp. 5-17.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi.

Drucker, P.F. (1994). The age of social transformation. The Atlantic Monthly, 274(5), 53-80.

Dwyer, C.A. (1994). Development of the knowledge base for Praxis III: Classroom performance assessments assessment criteria. Princeton: Educational Testing
Service.

Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate the curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61-65.

Fox, M. (1985) Wilfred Gordon MacDonald Patridge. Brooklyn, NY: Kami/Miller.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum Press.

Galluzo, G., & Pankratz, R. (1991). Five attributes of a teacher education program knowledge base. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 7-14.

Gold, S. (1986). When children invite child abuse. Eugene, Oregon: Fern Ridge Press.

Goodwin, A.L. (1994). Making the transition from self to other: What do preservice teachers really think about multicultural education? Journal of Teacher Education, 45(2), 119-131.

Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hoffman, J., & Pearson, P.D. (2000). Reading teacher education in the next millennium: What your grandmother’s teacher didn’t know that your granddaughter’s teacher should. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 28-44.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Leland, C.H., & Harste, J.C. (1994). Multiple ways of knowing: Curriculum in a new key. Language Arts, 71, 337-345.

Linn, R., Baker, E., & Dunbar, S. (1991), Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria.î Educational Researcher, 20(7), 15-21.

Lundeberg, M.A., & Fawver, J.E. (1994). Thinking like a teacher: Encouraging cognitive growth in case analysis. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(4), 289-297.

McDermott, P., Gormley, K., Rothenberg, J., & Hammer, J. (1995) The influence of classroom practica experiences on student teachers' thoughts about teaching.Journal of Teacher Education, 46(3), 184-191.

Meade, E.J. (1991) Reshaping the clinical phase of teacher preparation. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(9), 666-669.

Paley,V.G. (1992) You can’t say you can’t play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Morey, A.I. & Kitano, M.K. (1997.) Multicultural course transformation in higher education: A broader truth. Allyn & Bacon.

Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. Teachers College Press.

Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. 3rd. ed. Longman.

Ovando, C.J. & McLaren, P. (Eds.) (2000). The politics of multiculturalism and bilingual education: Students and teachers caught in the crossfire. McGraw Hill.

Palmer, P.J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life. Jossey-Bass.

Pitton, D. (1998). Stories of student teaching: a case approach to the student teaching esperience. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Pitton, D. (2000). Mentoring novice teachers: Fostering a dialogue process. Arlington Heights, IL: Pearson/Skylight Publishing, Inc.

Reagan, T. Educating the "reflective practitioner": The contribution of philosophy of education. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26(4), 189-196.

Reif, L. (1990). Finding the value in evaluation: Self-assessment in a middle school classroom. Educational Leadership. 47(6), 24-29.

Ropers-Huilman, B. (1998). Feminist teaching in theory & practice: Situating power & knowledge in poststructural classrooms. Teachers College Press.

Russell, T. (1993). Reflection-in-action and the development of professional expertise. Teacher Education Quarterly, 20(1), 51-62.

Sleeter, C.E. & Grant, C.A. (1994.) Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender. 2nd ed. Merrill.

Smith, F. (1990). To think. New York: Teachers College Press.

Smith, J.L., & Johnson, H. (1994). Models for implementing literature in content studies. The Reading Teacher, 48(3), 198-209.

Stiggins, R. J. (1985). Improving Assessment where it means the most: In the classroom. Educational Leadership. 44(2), 69-74.

Sylwester, R. (1994). What the biology of the brain tells us about learning. Educational Leadership, 51(4), 46-51.

Tafel, L.S. (1984). Futures research: Important implications for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 6-9.

Tatum, B.D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial identity development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 1-24.

Teaching and Learning Programs. (1994). Teacher performance assessments: A comparative view. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

Tom. (1984). Teaching as a moral craft. New York: Longman.

Valli, L. (1993) Reconsidering technical and reflective concepts in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 15(2), 35-42.

Wiggins, G. (1989), A true test: Toward authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan. 70(9), 703-713.

Wiggins, G. (1991). Standards, not standardization: Evoking quality student work. Educational Leadership. 48(6), 18-25.

Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B.R. (1991). Reflections on reflective teaching. In B. Tabachnink & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher education (pp. 1-21). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H. & Hyde, H. (1999) Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in America's schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.



Appendix C

Department of Education Mission Statement

The Education Department prepares preservice educators who implement “principled practice” -- reflective, student-centered, democratic, and authentic teaching and learning. This mission is facilitated by the strong liberal arts preparation of the students, focuses within the college on service, international education, interdisciplinary curriculum and teaching, peace education, and leadership development.

The mission of the department supports the mission of the college through teaching, advising, and mentoring roles that are supportive of the Gustavus philosophy. Teacher Education students learn to take their learnings from all departments and experiences, and weave them into a personal and professional plan for contributing to the betterment of the world. We teach decision-making and problem solving in complex interpersonal situations as well as a variety of communication skills. In addition, the department contributes in a variety of ways to the existing and developing teaching expertise of the campus. The department contributes directly and indirectly to the strong positive image of the college and to the soundness of the education of entering students.













Appendix D

Mission of Gustavus Adolphus College
(revised and approved April, 1995)

Gustavus Adolphus College is a church-related, residential liberal arts college firmly rooted in its Swedish and Lutheran heritage.

The College offers students of high aspiration and promise a liberal arts education of recognized excellence provided by faculty who embody the highest standards of teaching and scholarship. The Gustavus curriculum is designed to bring students to mastery of a particular area of study within a general framework that is both interdisciplinary and international in perspective.

The College strives to balance educational tradition with innovation and to foster the development of values as an integral part of intellectual growth. It seeks to promote the open exchange of ideas and the independent pursuit of learning.

The College aspires to be a community of persons from diverse backgrounds who respect and affirm the dignity of all people. It is a community where a mature understanding of the Christian faith and lives of service are nurtured and students are encouraged to work toward a just and peaceful world.

The purpose of a Gustavus education is to help students attain their full potential as persons, to develop in them a capacity and passion for lifelong learning, and to prepare them for fulfilling lives of leadership and service in society.

This mission statement explicitly identifies a number of institutional goals that we at Gustavus collectively pursue. These goals include:
1. Providing a liberal arts education of recognized excellence that is both rigorous and innovative;
2. An integration of moral development with intellectual growth;
3. Developing a mature understanding of the Christian faith tradition;
4. Encouraging respect for others and sensitivity to community;
5. Developing a commitment to service and the skills of leadership;
6. Developing an international perspective;
7. Nurturing a commitment to work toward a just and peaceful world;
8. Developing a capacity and passion for life-long learning;
9. Encouraging independence of thought and cooperative scholarship; and
10. Developing mastery of a field of concentration in the context of an interdisciplinary and broad general education.




Appendix E

Statement of Vision of Gustavus Adolphus College


The Strategic Planning Task Force offered the following vision for Gustavus 2001 in the 1994 report:

Gustavus Adolphus College aspires to be among the leading national liberal arts colleges in our country. It seeks to reach this goal by building upon the accomplishments of the past several decades while being true to its unique character and its distinctive mission in higher education. Indeed, its mission as a college of the Church forms the basis of that aspiration, and its identity and shared values will serve as a vehicle and guide for attaining that objective. Gustavus does not aspire to model itself after any other specific college or group of colleges, but seeks to be obedient to its own calling and to fulfill the potential for excellence that it possesses.

The College will continue to develop the abilities and sensibilities of talented men and women called to leadership roles in their chosen professions and their
communities. This will be done by challenging them with the ideas, experiences, discoveries, and creative expressions that reflect the best that human civilization has achieved. A rigorous and innovative education will be provided in a setting marked by a pervasive concern for the intellectual, moral, social and spiritual maturation of Gustavus students and for their physical well-being. They will be prepared for fulfilling lives of service and leadership in an increasingly complex global society.

The College's liberal arts nature, even in its several preprofessional programs, will be both affirmed and further strengthened. The College will be increasingly
international in its perspective and national in quality, reputation, and appeal to talented students and faculty. It will preserve its distinctive character as the College of the ELCA, as an institution arising out of the Swedish immigrant community in the Midwest, and as reflecting the values and hopes implicit in this heritage.