Ellen Schiller, Ph.D. and Jacque Melin , M.A. Grand Valley State University Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA schillee@gvsu.e

1. The Benefits of Involving Multiple Stakeholders as Equal Partners in the Teacher Education Program Development ProcessICET World AssemblyGlasgow, Scotland July 12, 2011 Ellen Schiller, Ph.D. and Jacque Melin, M.A. Grand Valley State University Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA schillee@gvsu.edu and melinj@gvsu.edu

2. The W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s Woodrow Wilson Michigan Teaching Fellowship Program at Grand Valley State University (GVSU) • A three-year funded graduate-level program to train 15 fellows per year as secondary math and science teachers. • Candidates apply through a competitive process through the Woodrow Wilson Foundation. Final selections made by GVSU. • Fellows must already hold undergraduate degrees in mathematics, science, or engineering. • Fellows receive $30,000 per year toward tuition and living expenses. • Fellows must teach 3 years in a high-needs urban or rural secondary school. • Fellows receive certification at the end of 11 months, and a master’s degree at the end of 15 months in the program.

3. The Purpose for Collaborative Program Design • Our purpose was to create an outstanding graduate teacher preparation program for prospective secondary mathematics and science teachers who will teach in high needs schools and facilitate the achievement of all of their students. • In order to create a cutting-edge, clinically-based program, we sought to create a program development team of collaborators who represented the various stakeholders in the teacher education process, including traditionally unrepresented school teachers, curriculum and instructional specialists, and administrators.

4. Identifying Participants in the Collaborative Program Development Process • Three local urban school districts were selected as partners for developing the program and hosting the fellows during year-long internships in math and science classrooms • District superintendents were asked to identify their best math and science teachers to act as program development team members and mentor teachers • The program development team consisted of 13 secondary school teachers, curriculum specialists, and administrators; 6 Math and Science professors; 7 Education professors; and the Dean of Engineering

5. Determining the Desired Result(s) • To gain a shared understanding of the characteristics of teachers to be developed through the teacher education program, we asked, “What qualities characterize outstanding and effective secondary science and mathematics teachers for all students in high needs secondary schools?” • When all of the stakeholders came together to begin the program development over one week in May, 2010, different perspectives became evident. • To get past the differences, we found it helpful to list our ideas and find areas of agreement. These common ideas framed the characteristics we wanted for prospective teachers enrolling in the program.

6. Clarifying the Component Tasks for Designing with the End in Mind Once the goal became clear, having common understandings of the tasks facilitated collaborative planning. For us these tasks included: • Deciding on the program’s philosophical orientation and model(s). • Designing a program that supports our philosophy and model of how to educate such a teacher. • Basing the program on research and accepted practice and involving prospective teachers in clinical settings for over half of the time. • Integrating clinical work with academic components and courses. • Addressing state and national standards and university degree requirements. • Meeting certification and endorsement requirements in 15 months.

7. Determining a Programmatic and Philosophical Framework • Professors shared several options for the programmatic and philosophical framework of the program: clinical, medical, project-based, content area pedagogy, target inquiry, disciplinary literacy, and universal design for learning, in addition to state and national standards. • Only the school teachers and administrators were invited to critique and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each potential model, in regard to their opinions about how well each would prepare fellows for teaching in high needs, urban school settings. • We decided on a clinical model with rotations and a universal design for learning orientation. The program also includes content area pedagogy, project based learning, and disciplinary literacy in the curriculum.

8. Developing a Program with its Course and Clinical Components • Once the framework was clear, it was time to combine ideas into a sequence of integrated courses and clinical experiences. • For us, this meant having smaller groups of 4-6 members co-plan program components during the summer of 2010. Each group had participants from the Colleges of Education and Liberal Arts and Sciences as well as public school educators. • Groups developed new courses, compacted courses, linked courses across a year, and established a sequence of activities and academic content that builds toward the desired goal. • This resulted in course syllabi, clinical activities and internship handbooks, and a proposal for experimental program approval.

9. Planned Program for Master of Education in Instruction and Curriculum with an Emphasis in Secondary Level Education and Secondary Certification in Mathematics or Science Summer Courses and Credits Becoming a Teacher (2) Cultural and Social Development of Adolescents (2) Facilitating Learning Environments (2) Connecting Curriculum, Assessment, & Instruction (3) Fall Courses and Credits Facilitating Learning Environments (1) Connecting Curriculum, Assessment, & Instruction (2) Inclusive Practices (3) Disciplinary Literacy for Adolescents (3) Gathering and Using Data (2) Winter Courses and Credits Connecting Curriculum, Assessment, & Instruction (2) Action Research (1) Secondary Education Practicum and Seminar (6) Second Summer Courses and Credits Social and Cultural Foundation of Education (3) Additional Course Needed for Master’s Degree, to be taken after previous courses Master’s Project/Thesis

10. Additional Program Highlights and Components • In addition to coursework, fellows will participate in weekly Fellows Forum on-line discussions during the school year, along with an iPad instructional integration study. • Fellows will complete school-based internship rotations in classrooms during the fall semester (September-December). These classroom rotations will be linked to course assignments and Fellows Forum discussions. • Fellows will complete whole-day teaching internships during the winter semester (January-April).

11. Using On-going Mentoring as a Way to Support Novice Teachers • Becoming an effective teacher who is able to support the achievement of all students requires not only an outstanding teacher preparation program but also a support system that continues throughout the program and fosters professional development during the first years of teaching. Since we do not know where our prospective teachers will teach, we developed an on-line communication and mentoring system that will be supported by observations and drive-in sessions. • The mentoring website is not public, but fellows can access it through our university Blackboard system.

12. Program Component Review, Internal and External Evaluation to Refine the Program and Document Success • Internal and external evaluation is being conducted throughout the three year span of the program, and will follow fellows for three years into their teaching careers. • The internal evaluation will focus on fellows’ scores on the state certification tests, performance during classroom observations, and mentor teacher and field coordinator final evaluations. These will be compared to those of students in our traditional undergraduate teacher education program and our current Graduate Teacher Certification program. • The external evaluation will focus on the achievement test scores of fellows’ future students and track continued employment/commitment to teaching.

13. Gaining Program Perspective through an Advisory Board • An advisory board made up of administrators from across the university and partner school districts can facilitate a broader perspective and the program review process. Members included the provost, deans, and district superintendents to representatives of admissions, alumni, news and information, student services, and internal evaluators, as well as district human resources and secondary administrators.

14. 5 E Learning Cycle Model(Bybee & Landes, 1990) • Engagement Object, event or question used to engage students. Connections facilitated between what students know and can do. • Exploration Objects and phenomena are explored. Hands-on activities, with guidance. • Explanation Students explain their understanding of concepts and processes. New concepts and skills are introduced as conceptual clarity and cohesion are sought. • Elaboration Activities allow students to apply concepts in contexts, and build on or extend understanding and skill. • Evaluation Students assess their knowledge, skills and abilities. Activities permit evaluation of student development and lesson effectiveness.

15. GANAG(Jane E. Pollock, 2007) • G = State the GOALS (or standards) intended for the lesson  • A = ACCESS prior knowledge that relates to lesson • N = Introduce NEW information or concepts • A = ANALYZE the new information or concepts • G = Restate the GOALS learned in the lesson (Generalize)

16. Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) Douglas Fisher & Nancy FreySan Diego State Universitywww.fisherandfrey.com

17. TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY “I do it” Focus Lesson Guided Instruction “We do it” “You do it together” Collaborative “You do it alone” Independent STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY A Structure for Instruction that Works

18. In some classrooms … TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY “I do it” Focus Lesson “You do it alone” Independent STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY

19. N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z A B C D E F G H I J K L M From Fogarty & Pete – Wildly Exciting, 2010

20. AnonymousPre-Assessment(Stiggins, 2006) • Number paper from 1-5 • Answer questions in the following way: • 5: I do this on an ongoing basis, or this happens all the time in my classroom • 4: I do this frequently, or this happens frequently in my classroom • 3: I do this sometimes, or this sometimes happens in my classroom • 2: I do this infrequently, or this happens infrequently in my classroom • 1: I don’t do this, or this doesn’t happen in my classroom

21. Question #1 • I understand the relationship between assessment and student motivation and use assessment to build student confidence rather than failure and defeat.

22. Question #2 • I articulate, in advance of teaching, the achievement targets my students are to hit.

23. Question #3 • My students describe what targets they are to hit and what comes next in their learning.

24. Question #4 • My students are actively, consistently, and effectively involved in assessment, including learning to manage their own learning through the skills of self-assessment.

25. Question #5 • My students actively, consistently, and effectively communicate with others about their achievement status and improvement.

26. References Bybee, R. & Landes, N. M. (1990). Science for life and living: An elementary school science program from biological curriculum study. The American Biology Teacher, 52(2), 92-98. Duncan, A. (2009). Teacher Preparation: Reforming the Uncertain Profession. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10222009.html Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (n.d.) Gradual release of responsibility. Retrieved from www.fisherandfrey.com. Levine, A. (2010). Teacher education must respond to changes in America. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2), 19 - 24. Levine, A. (2011, May 8). The new normal of teacher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 57 (36), Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Normal-of-Teacher/127430/ Obama, B. (2011). State of the Union address. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the- press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address Pollock, J. E. (2007). Improving student learning one teacher at a time. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Stiggins, R., Ater, J., Chappuis, S., & Chappuis, J. (2006). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right-using it well. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute.