Secondary Education Program

1

Language Arts Rejoinders (February, 2009)

School of Education

Program Review Rejoinder

for

Secondary: Language Arts Education

February 2009

The 2008 review of IPFW’s Secondary: Language Arts Education Program by the Indiana Department of Education was approved with three conditions, which we have responded to below. The information received from the DOE was:

1. To what degree does the program prepare candidates in professional and

pedagogical knowledge and skills?

____Great degreeCourse work prepares candidates very well

in these areas.

XXModerate degreeCourse work prepares candidates moderately

well inthese areas.

XMinimal degreeCourse work insufficiently prepares

candidates in these areas.

____Not evidentCourse work does not prepare candidates in

these areas.

No supporting rationales were provided from the reviewers on this assessment item. After reading all of the feedback for the other 9 items, however, we believe that the concerns probably reflect a lack of information regarding courses required within the School of Education sequence of study (see last reviewer’s comments for criteria #7 below).

We have reviewed the directions provided by the Indiana Department of Education as well as our notes from conversations with Mary Glenn Rinne. It was our understanding at that time that we needed to align only the content courses and the method courses with the Indiana Academic Standards. Obviously, this decision omitted a great deal of information regarding courses which add to our candidates’ professional and pedagogical content knowledge. We have always required courses that address the psychology of teaching, working with students who have special needs, foundations in education, and other general method courses in our program and would like to highlight those courses here.

The consideration of such issues as diversity and classroom management are woven into various courses. For example, diversity is covered from the classroom perspective in F 300, pre-service teachers work with diverse students in the field experience that is linked to W 200, and the topic is covered within a cultural/ historical framework in H 340. In addition, care is taken to ensure that pre-service teachers experience a variety of educational environments during the field experiences that are linked to the educational psychology and methods courses; thus, pre-service teachers are assigned to a variety of buildings as they move through the field experience sequence that is linked to the two (2) educational psychology courses and the methods offering. Similarly, classroom management is imbedded in several courses; this may occur specifically (in the educational psychology courses) and more generally in the methods course. While these course descriptions were initially presented in Document 1, we list them and additional details here for your review.

EDUA F300: Invitation to Teaching,Cr. 2.

This course will provide a strong beginning for students considering teaching as a career. Students will experience the teaching profession through university classroom activities and field experiences in local schools. Through reading, discussion, and reflection, students are introduced to the School of Education’s Conceptual Framework, teacher licensing standards in the state of Indiana, and the INTASC (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium) Standards. Students will begin the process of establishing and developing materials for a pre-service teacher portfolio that is required for teaching certification at IPFW.

Field experience required. Candidates observe for 15 hours to gain information on how standards are evident in the daily work of educators. Each candidate is evaluated on professional dispositions by their classroom teacher and must provide an acceptable Limited Criminal History check before the field experience can begin.

EDUC H340: Education & American Culture, Cr. 3.

The present educational system, its social impact and future implications viewed in historical, philosophical, and sociological perspective.

EDUC K201: Schools, Society & Exceptionality, Cr. 1.

This course is designed to provide an overview of the many complex issues related to special education policy and practice in the United States. Content will include an introduction to the definitions and characteristics of various exceptionalities; an exploration of the options available for instructing exceptional children in public school settings; and discussions of the many important topics and issues related to planning and implementing special education in American public schools.

EDUC K206: Teaching Methods for Students with Special Needs, Cr. 3.

P: K201. This course will focus on curriculum and instructional methods for teaching students with diverse abilities and disabilities. Specifically, students will learn about the historical and legal precedents in special education, student-centered assessment and planning strategies, learning styles, curricular adaptions, individualized instruction, teaming strategies, building classroom communities, and planning for transitions, career exploration, and adult outcomes.

EDUC M447: Methods of TeachingHigh School English/EDUC M401, Cr. 3/0.

Methods for teaching English for AYA students. The integration of Indiana State Standards when developing curriculum, selecting instructional strategies, and assessing learning are all investigated.

Public school participation required. During the field experience, candidates plan and implement content experiences; perform formal and informal assessments; and complete other tasks as assigned by Cooperating Teacher. Demonstrate evidence of applying INTASC standards as well as all information gained in coursework.

EDUC P250: General Educational Psychology/EDUC M201, Cr. 3/0.

P: W200. The study and application of psychological concepts and principles as related to the teaching-learning process, introduction to classroom management, measurement/evaluation, and disability awareness.

Public school participation required. Candidates use observational data to experience and address the candidates’ understanding of the physical, social, and intellectual environments of secondary classrooms. Demonstrate evidence of analyzing INTASC standards as well as all information gained in coursework.

EDUC P253: Educational Psychology for Secondary School Teachers/EDUC M201, Cr. 3/0.

P: P250. The application of psychological concepts to school learning and teaching in the perspective of development from pre-adolescence through adolescence. Special attention is devoted to the needs of the handicapped.

Public school participation required. Candidates use observational data to experience and address the candidates’ understanding of the physical, social, and intellectual environments of secondary classrooms. Demonstrate evidence of applying INTASC standards as well as all information gained in coursework.

EDUC W200: Microcomputers for Education: An Introduction/ EDUC M101, Cr. 1/0.

Introduction to instructional computing, educational computing literature, and BASIC programming. Review and hands-on experience with educational software packages and commonly used microcomputer hardware. A field experience is required for this course during which candidates plan, implement, and reflect on using technology (internet activities and software) with students.

EDUC X401: Critical Reading in the Content Area, Cr. 3.

Aids elementary and secondary teachers in the development of instructional strategies which assist students in the comprehension, critical analysis, and integration of ideas presented in literature of various subject-matter areas. Public school participation required.

EDUC M470: Practicum, Cr. 4 (6 weeks FT).

Teaching or experience under the direction of an identified cooperating teacher with university-provided supervision in the endorsement or minor area, and at the level appropriate to the area, and in an accredited school within the state of Indiana unless the integral program includes experience in an approved and accredited out-of-state site. Grade: S or F.

EDUC M480: Student Teaching: Secondary School, Cr. 12 (10 weeks FT).

Students assume, under the direction of the cooperating teacher, responsibility for teaching in their subject-matter area in a public school in the state. Additional fee.

If the information above is used in conjunction with assessment data provided for the initial review, specifically our candidates’ knowledge of and ability to apply the INTASC standards (portfolio data in Part C. 1 Program Assessment Data), we believe that we have provided strong evidence that our candidates have many varied and systematically building opportunities to acquire the professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills necessary for teaching Language Arts to EA/AYA students in school settings.

1. How effectively does the coursework provide a candidate the content needed to

impact P-12 student learning as it relates to the Indiana Academic Standards?

____ Highly effectiveCourse work prepares candidates very well

to impact P-12 student learning as related to

the Indiana Academic Standards.

X Moderately effectiveCourse work prepares candidates moderately

well to impact P-12 student learning as

related to the Indiana Academic Standards.

XX Somewhat effectiveCourse work prepares candidates

insufficiently to impact P-12 student learning as related to the Indiana Academic Standards.

____ Not effectiveCourse work does not prepare candidates to

impact P-12 student learning as related to the Indiana Academic Standards.

Rationale:

(Somewhat effective): The documentation submitted provided one example of the students aligning lesson planning to Indiana Academic Standards. One may assume that this is done through field experiences and student teaching opportunities, however; this was not presented in the submitted documentation.

(Somewhat effective): If students are to have a background in "Ethnic, Minority, and Non-Western Literature," how does a course titled "Studies in British and American Authors" satisfy the requirement? Likewise, does "American Literature since 1865" really fit "Contemporary American Literature"? Some of the choices within each grouping do not seem to satisfy the standards. Because many of these courses are not included in the matrix, it is not possible to ascertain their role in the program. Overall, the program seems to have a very heavy concentration on literature with little emphasis on composition. If we examine what is expected of students by the IAS, it seems the composition program for candidates might be strengthened.

(Moderately effective): While it is clear that the content area is well covered, pedagogy appears weak. Having 6 credits of ed. psych and 9 hours of methods is minimal, at best. How do these students learn to deal with diverse needs, classroom management, etc? Document 1 lists 14 required teacher education courses, but only 5 are listed in document 2 as English curriculum. Some of the other courses are mentioned peripherally in the field experience chart. Since this is an education degree, all education courses should be listed in the curriculum list and given course descriptions. The snapshot of the program would be much more clear if that were done.

The reviewers provided diverse feedback to this criteria ranging from wanting more assessments that demonstrate the alignment of curriculum planning to IAS to the types of courses required to the quality of pedagogical training within the program. No specific feedback was provided regarding our data which specifically addressed our candidates’ impact on student learning. It is our conclusion, then, that the reviewers believed that our evidence was sufficient. However, we would like to respond to some of their concerns stated above as a way to clarify how our candidates possess the knowledge and skills to positively impact EA/AYA students’ learning in Language Arts.
In F300, candidates are introduced to the background of the standards movement as it applies to them as teachers. They familiarize themselves with INTASC standards and analyze classroom observations/experiences in light of those standards. During their educational psychology, special education, and foundations courses, they investigate more fully issues such as background of the standards movement and its impact on student learning for those with and without identified special needs, motivation, classroom management, and the profession. They also spend a great deal of time beginning to unify the tensions between the developmental needs of students and the focus on standards-based curriculum. In EDUC M 447, the discussion regarding standards is expanded to include: 1) the structure of the English/ language arts standards in Indiana; 2) the impact that thestandards-based era has on curriculum; and 3) the need to build comprehensive units and the daily lesson plans that comprise those units around the standards. In EDUC M 447 and X401, the major course projectsare a curriculum unit. The rubrics require students to indicate the English/language arts standards that are covered as well as standards from other related academic disciplines (e.g., social studies).
During Student Teaching, the University Supervisor and Cooperating Teacher both evaluate, on three separate occasions, candidates’ success in planning and teaching standards-based lesson plans (i.e., a total of six observations are conducted).The pre-service teacher must plan the lesson; teach it while being observed by either his/her cooperating teacher or university supervisor, who completes a formal review of the lesson’s implementation; and then respond to the review. Data from the final observation by the University Supervisor was provided in our initial program report and demonstrated that our candidates improved significantly on their ability to analyze their impact on student learning from 2006-2007 to 2007-2008. The portfolio data also provides evidence of our candidates’ abilities to assess learning (e.g., Standard 8: 2005-2006 4.33/5.0; 2006-2007 4.54/5.00; and 2007-2008 4.44/5.0 – all of which exceed an 80% proficiency).
Regarding the perceived imbalance between composition and literature requirements in our program, we would like to highlight the following information. All students take four (4) writing or writing-related courses within the program, including: 1) ENG W 131, which is a general university requirement (or its equivalent, in the case of a student who tests into a higher-level course); 2) either ENG L 202 or ENG W 233; 3) ENG W 103; and 4) ENG W 400. In addition, many of the program’s literature courses include a heavy writing component. Beyond that, all IPFW students (regardless of major) are required to complete an upper-level (300 or 400) “Inquiry and Analysis” course; to be listed in this category, a course must include a writing-intensive component regardless of its academic content (e.g., history, psychology, biology, etc.). As such, all program pre-service teachers receive training in writing in a content-based situation.
Specific questions were raised about required courses and these will be addressed next. The course title “Studies in British and American Literature” (ENG L 369) is a generic code that allows the Department of English to offer a wide variety of courses without going through the cumbersome, time-consuming process of gaining university-wide approval (e.g., approval from all pertinent academic unit[s] and department[s] on the eight [8] campuses of Indiana University) for each course that it offers. Each particular course offered under code ENG L 369 is given a specific sub-title: only those courses whose titles indicate that the core content is ethnic, minority, or non-Western literature are accredited to complete the program’s minority literature requirement. Compliance with this regulation is achieved through the student advising process and by cross-checking course sub-titles on the pre-service teacher’s transcript at various times during his/her academic career.
The course ENG L 251 (“American Literature Since 1865”) is only one (1) of seven (7) courses that may be taken to fulfill the program’s Contemporary American Literature requirement. This course’s inclusion within the category in question is consistent with the general pattern that is found in American studies programs in both literature and history, that is, that the Civil War period is the bridging point between early and modern American history and literature. The inclusion of this course in the contemporary category is also consistent with the Indiana Academic Standards for 11th grade United States history, that is, that the course of that course focuses on post-Civil War history.
The various literature categories are defined by geography and time frame. As such, the courses listed in these categories are consistent with the parametersestablished by the various category listings. In a few cases (e.g., ENG L 322, “English Literature, 1660-1789” being listed in the Post-1700 British Literature category), there is a slight inconsistency between the course title and the category (e.g., in the case in question, a 40-year overlap). However, the bulk of the content of each course is consistent with the time frame established for its particular category, and the historical period involved lends itself to the course/categorycorrelation that is indicated.
We hope that this additional information assists reviewers in understanding the depth of knowledge and skills that our candidates possess that prepares them to successfully impact EA/AYA students’ learning of Language Arts.

9.Does the program offer a variety of field experiences for candidates?

XXYESXNO

Rationale:

(YES): Program offers 3 supervised field experiences of 30 hours each, one practicum experience of 6 weeks full time and one student teacher experience of 10 weeks full time.

(YES): The narrative describes a consolidation of field experiences into one major placement. This would seem to limit the diversity of candidates' experiences.

(NO): This is something the unit is addressing. It is mentioned that an attempt is being made to "set up a field experience where pre-service middle school teachers can actually teach an interdisciplinary unit in a middle school setting." They have assessed this as a shortcoming in their own program and are working on it. Again, good work.

As outlined in Document 1 (previously submitted), we reported that our candidates participate in four (4) field experiences before their Student Teaching/Practicum which involve a total of 93 hours in classrooms. However, upon careful review, we realized that one field experience was not listed on the table. We inadvertently missed including one 15-hour placement which occurs as part of the course, F300 Invitation to Teaching. This course is one of the first courses taken in the education program. Our field experiences have been designed to progress from observations to planning and implementing individual lesson plans. We apologize for this oversight and hope that is it now evident that our students have a variety of field experiences, beginning in their first year at IPFW. We believe that our field experiences adequately prepare our candidates to teach Language Arts to EA/AYA students.
As explained in our previous Document 2, we want to expand the requirements for the field experience which accompanies the method course (M447) to insure that all candidates get to plan and implement an entire unit, not merely individual lesson plans. Our current approach is more than sufficient but our goal is to continuously improve our program and being more systematic in structuring our field experiences, we believe, would benefit the candidates in our program.