 |
Montclair State University
College of Education and Human Services
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Programs for the Preparation of Educators
The conceptual framework that
guides programs for the preparation of educators at Montclair State University
(MSU) is grounded in a vision of schooling
in a democratic society. Our
explicit emphasis on the interconnection of education and democracy grew out of
our participation in the National Network for Educational Renewal (NNER) and
the Agenda for Education in a Democracy (AED), both based on the work of John
Goodlad. Consistent with the
conceptual underpinnings of the NNER and AED, MSU’s programs for teachers and
other school professionals emphasize the moral dimensions of schooling in a
democracy and promote a view of educators as ethical decision-makers
responsible for disrupting inequities in school and assuring the engagement and
learning of all students. Such work
demands a commitment to civic responsibility and to critically examining the
nature, causes, and means for eradicating social and institutional inequalities
as well as to fostering the development of best practices for supporting
productive learning for all students.
In keeping with the NNER goals, our
programs for educators are guided by four principles:
(1) Providing
access to knowledge for all children and youth;
(2) Forging
caring and effective connections with all children and youth;
(3) Fostering in
the young the skills, dispositions, and knowledge necessary for effective
participation in a social and political democracy; and
(4) Ensuring
responsible stewardship and change agency in schools.
Below we provide a brief explanation of each of these
principles.
Providing access to knowledge
for all children and youth. Central to our conceptual framework is the belief that a purpose of
schools in democratic societies is to give all children and youth access to
knowledge. In a post-industrial
world, that means enabling P-12 students to attain academic standards that are
considerably higher than basic literacy and numeracy. Today’s students need a deeper knowledge
of content than that promoted by the traditional transmission approach to
teaching. They also need to develop
critical thinking skills—the ability, for example, to analyze and
synthesize disparate information, to make reasoned judgments based on sound
criteria, and to apply information and judgments to real-world situations in
order to solve problems. Students
in elementary and secondary schools must also develop facility with new
technologies. Without access to
these types of knowledge, young people will be unable to become active
participants in a democratic society.
It is well documented, however,
that all children do not have equal access to learning. Students in poor schools and communities,
for example, tend to have less access to educational resources, including
well-prepared teachers, than children in more affluent schools and
communities. Even when the
curriculum is very similar, teacher expectations and other factors lead to different
outcomes in different types of schools. Specifically, children who attend schools in low
income communities and who are of racial/ethnic minority backgrounds
tend to do less well academically than their more affluent white peers. Since access to knowledge is access to
power, offering vastly different educational resources and experiences to
different groups of students is morally unacceptable. We at MSU are committed to preparing
educators who will take a stand against inequitable school practices and are
able to enact an unrelenting focus on student learning and engagement. This does not mean rote “teaching to the
test;” instead it means setting student learning goals for deep
understanding of relevant and challenging curricula for all students and using
valid assessments to measure that learning and inform ongoing instruction.
Forging caring and effective connections with all children and
youth. Our commitment to
preparing teachers and other school professionals who build caring and effective connections with all young people is another
principle that informs programs for educators at MSU. The educators we aim to prepare not only
hold themselves to a high standard for ensuring that all children develop
subject matter knowledge, critical thinking skills, and technological
abilities, they also attend to the relationships inherent in schooling. Such educators engage students as
multi-dimensional and multi-talented persons, helping them develop cognitively,
socially, and affectively. Helping
students develop the skills and dispositions to think critically as one aspect
of nurturing pedagogy. We view
nurturing pedagogy as being based on knowledge of subject matter, students,
families, communities, and curriculum goals and standards; and as taking into
account issues of class, gender, race, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation,
age, and special needs.
Fostering in the young the
skills, dispositions, and knowledge necessary for effective participation in a
social and political democracy. The third principle that informs our work is the belief that schools and
educators are responsible for fostering
in the young the skills, dispositions, and knowledge to participate in a social
and political democracy. Education and democracy are inextricably linked; the maintenance of
democracy depends on having an educated populace to make decisions for the
common good. Schooling is the only
social institution responsible for developing in young people the abilities and
dispositions to become active and engaged members of a democracy. To us at MSU, this means schools must
ensure that all children learn to think well (i.e., critically) in the context
of a community, learn to value different points of view, and feel responsible
for the well-being of the community.
Ensuring
responsible stewardship and change agency in schools. The fourth principle that grounds the
preparation of educators at MSU is the conviction that teachers and other school professionals need to see themselves as
stewards of best practice and agents of change in classrooms and schools. We want to prepare educators who feel
responsible for ensuring that schools educate all students, who see themselves
as moral actors, and who will take a stand against mediocrity and inequity. Such educators recognize that teaching
is a complex activity that is inherently political and ethical. They are aware that institutional
structures and practices do not exist in a vacuum, but that people build and
sustain them, whether consciously or unconsciously. They understand that, while education
has the potential to challenge and transform inequities in society, without
intervention, schools tend to reproduce those inequities by giving greater
status to the ways of thinking, talking, and behaving of the dominant cultural
group. They do not see themselves
as technicians, but as inquiry-oriented decision-makers. While it is a tall order to prepare such
educators because so many policies and practices in schools work against them,
we are nevertheless committed to doing so.
The centerpiece of the Unit’s conceptual framework is The Portrait of a Teacher, which grew
out of the four principles above and which reflect the InTASC Standards. Developed by faculty from the Unit and
partner schools, the Portrait is a
set of statements that translates the philosophical principles we embrace into
a tangible vision of the teacher in a democratic, multicultural society. Originally developed in 1994, the document
was revised in 1999 and 2003. While
the Portrait focuses specifically on
the teacher, the vision it articulates serves as a common foundation for all
Unit programs. (The Portrait is accessible on the CEHS
website: http://cehs.montclair.edu/academic/cop/.) Below, we highlight the salient
characteristics of the teacher/educator depicted in the Portrait.
The socially and culturally responsive educators we aim to
produce:
1. Know the subject matter they teach/the
knowledge base of the professional field they practice. There is general agreement in the
teacher education literature that “knowledge of the content to be taught
underlies all aspects of good instruction” (Dwyer, 1994, p. 23). To give their students access to
knowledge, teachers need to understand the concepts, structures, purposes, and
processes of inquiry in the disciplines they teach. They need a grasp of the subtleties,
contradictions, and unanswered questions in their disciplines as well as the
uncontested knowledge. That is,
they need a “flexible” understanding of subject matter to be able to adapt it
to different learners (McDiarmid, Ball, & Anderson, 1989). In addition, they need to understand and
be able to use appropriate content-specific pedagogical practices (Ball & Forzani,
2009). School professionals other
than teachers also must develop an in-depth understanding of the professional
knowledge base in their fields. While the details of this knowledge base vary according to the roles
such professionals play in schools, it includes an understanding of learning
and how it develops in various school, family, and community contexts; the
appropriate uses of various forms of student assessment and of technology;
professional ethics, law and policy; the nature and appropriate uses of
research and other data to improve student learning; and how they can promote
student learning.
2. Understand
how children and adolescents learn in a variety of contexts. To promote learning on the part of
children and youth, teachers and other school personnel must understand the
learning process. Cognitive science
tells us that learning is a process by which learners generate meaning in
response to new ideas and experiences they encounter, by using their prior
knowledge and beliefs to make sense of new input (Glasersfeld, 1995; Piaget,
1977). Thus, the knowledge children
bring to school, derived from personal and cultural experiences, is central to
their learning. Learning involves
both an intrapersonal dimension and an interpersonal, or social, dimension
(Bruner, 1966, 1996; Cole, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978). That is, learners use their prior
knowledge and beliefs to make sense of new input. At the same time, learning is situated
within a sociocultural context and social relationships are essential to
learning. Ultimately, it is an
understanding of student learning that must orient educators’ practice.
3. Are culturally responsive. In our increasingly diverse society,
teachers and other school professionals must be responsive to both the
individual and cultural backgrounds of the students in their care (Banks et
al., 2005; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Nieto, 2005). Our conception of the culturally
responsive educator encompasses six salient characteristics adapted from the
work of Villegas and Lucas (2002a, 2002b). Such educators: (1) are socioculturally conscious—that is, they
recognize that there are multiple ways of perceiving reality and that these
ways are influenced by one’s position in the social order; (2) have affirming
views of students from diverse backgrounds and see their differences as
resources for learning, not problems to be remedied; (3) see themselves as both
responsible for and capable of bringing about educational change that will make
schools more responsive to all students; (4) understand how learners construct
knowledge and are capable of promoting learners’ knowledge construction in the
various capacities they interact with students; (5) know about the lives of the
students they serve in order to help them build bridges to learning; and (6)
use their knowledge about students’ lives to help them achieve high academic
standards. We consider these
qualities essential for educators in our increasingly multicultural society.
4. Plan
their practice based upon knowledge of the subject matter, students and their
families/communities, and curriculum goals and standards. Teachers need to be able to plan
instruction based on their knowledge of subject matter, their understanding of
the curriculum goals and standards, and their insight into students’ lives. Instruction and other educational
services must be designed to take into account the diversity among students
related to such factors as class, gender, race, ethnicity, language, sexual
orientation, age, and special needs. Teachers who take these factors into account plan instruction that uses
pertinent examples and analogies from learners’ lives to introduce or clarify
new concepts (Banks, 1996; Irvine, 1992); draw on the expertise of parents and
community members; incorporate into their teaching cultural patterns from
children’s home and community experiences; draw on students’ linguistic
resources, including their home language (Garcia, Kleifgen, & Flachi, 2008;
Lucas & Villegas, 2011); and help students interrogate the curriculum
critically by having them address inaccuracies and omissions (Banks, 1991, 1996;
Cochran-Smith, 1997; Cochran-Smith, 2010).
5. Understand
critical thinking and problem solving, and create and support learning
experiences that promote the development of these skills and dispositions. Our view of critical thinking grew
out of the work of Matthew Lipman, an MSU scholar, who defines critical
thinking as reflective thought involving the making of judgments that rely on
criteria, are sensitive to context, are self-correcting, and occur within a
community of inquiry (Lipman 1988; Lipman, Sharp & Oscanyan, 1980). Critical thinking, constructivist views
of learning and teaching, and democratic practice go hand in hand. By emphasizing authentic conversations
about meaningful problems, constructivist classrooms promote critical thinking
and sensitivity to context, the recognition of multiple perspectives, and
collaboration (Villegas & Lucas, 2002a)—all features of critical
thinking. Similarly, all
participants in a democracy must be able to think critically so they can make
positive contributions to the society (Soder, 1996).
6. Understand
principles of democracy and model democratic values and communication in
classrooms and schools. To
promote the values of social justice and diversity inherent in a democratic
society, educators need to understand the concept of democracy and possess the
ability to model democratic practices. For purposes of education, it is important to make the distinction
between a political democracy and a social democracy (Goodlad, 1997). In Dewey’s conception, democracy is
“more than a form of government;” it is “primarily a mode of associated living”
(1966, p. 87). The relationships
between educators and students are central to this vision as well (Arum, 2011). It is the responsibility of schools
not only to teach young people about democratic political governance, but also
to foster “the democratic way of life” (Beane and Apple, 1995, p. 6). Among the conditions Beane and Apple
identify as necessary for the latter are the open flow of ideas; faith that
individually and collectively people can create solutions to problems; critical
reflection and analysis of ideas, problems, and policies; concern for the
welfare of others; concern for the dignity and rights of individuals and
minorities; and the organization of social institutions to promote the
democratic way of life. We seek to
prepare educators who embrace these conditions inside and outside schools.
7. Understand
and use multiple forms of assessment to promote the development of learners and
to inform their practice. If
the goal of schools is to educate all students to high levels of
achievement—as we believe it should be—then assessments must be
used in the service of improving teaching and learning. Assessment should be
used to help educators identify the strengths and needs of students so they can
determine the most effective ways of building on what children already know to
help them grow academically (Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001). Students need a variety of routes to
demonstrate their knowledge (Cochran-Smith, 1999; Oakes & Lipton, 1999;
Villegas, 1991; Zeichner, 1992) because reliance on a single type of assessment
task creates disadvantages for some learners. Educators should have knowledge of
different classroom assessments and the skill to use assessment data to inform
instruction (Bettesworth, Alonzo, Duesbery, 2009). They should also understand technical
issues related to classroom assessments and standardized tests and recognize
the appropriate uses as well as limitations of standardized tests (Popham,
2001). Consistent with the goals of
the Partnership for 21st
Century Skills, educators need to be able to design and/or select
authentic tasks that give insight into students’ thinking, develop high-order
cognitive skills, and promote life-long learning (Nicaise,
Gibney, & Crane, 2000). In sum,
teachers need to teach in ways that foster the reciprocal integration of
standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction (Castellain & Carran,
2009).
8. Create
school and classroom communities that are nurturing, caring, safe, and
conducive for learning. The way schools and classrooms are
organized and the resulting relationships between teachers and students have
profound implications for students’ learning. To be nurturing, caring, safe, and
conducive to learning, classroom communities need to foster rapport between
educators and students, help learners believe they can succeed, and establish
and maintain fair and constructive standards of behavior (Dwyer, 1994;
Noddings, 2005). They also need to
engage all students—not just the most advanced—“actively in
purposeful, meaningful, collaborative, intellectually rigorous, and
language-rich activities” (Villegas & Lucas, 2002a, p. 95), build on
students’ strengths, and ensure that all students know the culturally and linguistically appropriate
ways of participating in the classroom (Valdés, Bunch, Snow, & Lee, 2005; Villegas,
1991).
9. Are
reflective practitioners who continually engage in inquiry and seek out
opportunities that promote their professional growth. Reflection is essential to becoming the
type of educator we seek to prepare (see Dewey, 1933; Louden, 1991; Schön,
1983; Zeichner, 1992, 1996). In a
preservice teacher preparation program, we can only prepare excellent beginning teachers. To continue to develop expertise
throughout a career, educators must engage in purposeful and reflective
learning about teaching, learning, and students (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Lampert,
2010). Educators who ask themselves
questions about their own practice and who seek to understand the influences of
the social, political, and cultural context must gather information in
systematic ways to answer their questions and must seek opportunities to become
more knowledgeable and skilled professionals. (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009;
Maloney, Moore, &Taylor, 2011) Reflection in and of itself, however,
does not necessarily result in better teaching or more equitable school
practices. Zeichner (1996)
delineates three characteristics of reflective practice that promote social
justice and equity: the teacher focuses attention both inwardly toward her own
practice and outwardly toward the social context for the practice; reflection
focuses on social and political dimensions of schooling; and the educator is
committed to reflection as social practice, not simply introspection on
apparently neutral professional practices. Our perspective on teacher reflection is consistent with this view.
10. Are skilled
at building relationships with school colleagues, students’ families, and
community agencies to support students’ learning and well-being. When educators work in partnerships with
colleagues, parents/guardians, and community members, they increase the
resources available for student learning and maximize students’ academic growth
(Arvizu, 1996; Jeynes, 2011; Ross & Regan, 1993). In their relationships with colleagues,
educators need to know from whom they can seek help, who might need their help,
and with whom they might want to collaborate (Dwyer, 1994). The importance of teachers’ building
relationships with parents to support their involvement in their children’s
education is widely recognized (see Arvizu, 1996; Bempechat, 1990; Cruikshank,
1990; Gimbert, Desai,& Kerka, 2010; Jeynes, 2011; Nieto, 1996). Similarly, collaborations between
schools and community members can contribute significantly to student success
(Lucas, 1997).
11. Speak and
write English fluently and communicate clearly. Teachers teach communication skills to
their students; both teachers and other school professionals must model
appropriate communication skills for P-12 student. Therefore, it is essential that
educators be fluent in spoken and written English communication skills.
12. Model
dispositions that are consistent with ethical decision-making and stewards of
best practice. Most of the above eleven qualities we seek to
foster through our programs for educators can be characterized as knowledge and
skills. Underlying them is a set of
dispositions we expect of candidates enrolled in preparation programs for
teachers and other school personnel at MSU. For us, dispositions encompass
attitudes, commitments, beliefs, and values (Feiman-Nemser & Remilard,
1996; Freeman, 2007; Richardson, 1996; Sockett, 2008; Villegas, 2007). These dispositions are critical to the
vision of the responsive educator described above. The educators we aim to produce:
believe in the educability of all children; respect each individual and
cultural group; believe that all children bring talents and strengths to learning;
see students’ strengths as a basis for growth and their errors as opportunities
for learning; are committed to using assessment to identify students’ strengths
and promote students’ growth rather than to deny students access to learning
opportunities; appreciate multiple perspectives on knowledge; are committed to
the expression and use of democratic values in the schools; are committed to
critical reflection, inquiry, critical thinking, and life-long learning; are
committed to the ethical and enculturating responsibilities of educators; and
believe in the potential of schools to promote social justice, and to being
agents of change and stewards of best practice.
References
Arum, R. (2011). Reformers have
ignored one factor that could propel student learning: Restoring moral
authority to relationships between students and educators. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 9-13.
Arvizu, S. F. (1996). Family, community, and school collaboration. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teacher education (2nd Ed.), pp. 814-819.
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge
of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
60(5), 497-511.
Banks,
J. (1991). A curriculum for empowerment, action,
and change. In C. E. Sleeter
(Ed.), Empowerment through multicultural education, pp. 125-141. Albany: SUNY Press.
Banks,
J. (1996). The historical reconstruction of
knowledge about race: Implications for tranformative teaching. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Multicultural
education, tranformative knowledge, and action: Historical and contemporary
perspectives, pp. 64-87. NY:
Teachers College Press.
Banks, J.,
Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P…., McDonald, M. (2005). Teaching diverse
learners. In L. Darling-Hammond
& J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing
teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 232-274). San Fransisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Barber, B. R. (1997). Public school:
Education for democracy. In J. I.
Goodlad & T. J. McMannon (Eds.), The public purposes of education and
schooling, pp. 21-32.
Beane, J. A.,
& Apple, M. W. (1995). Democratic schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Bempechat,
J. (1990). The role of parent involvement in
children’s academic achievement: A review of the literature. NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban
Education.
Bettesworth,
L. R., Alonzo, J., Duesbery, L. (2009). Swimming in the depths: Educators’
ongoing effective use of data to guide decision making.
In T. J. Kowalski & T. J. Lasley II (Eds). Handbook of Data Based Decision Making in
Education. (pp. 286-303). New York: Routledge.
Bruner,
J. (1966). Toward
a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner,
J. (1996). The
culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Castellain,
J. & Carran, D. (2009). Creative decision-making strategies thorugh
technology-based curriculum tools. In T. J. Kowalski & T. J. Lasley II
(Eds). Handbook of Data
Based Decision Making in Education. (pp. 304-316). New York: Routledge.
Cochran-Smith,
M. (1997). Knowledge, skills, and experiences for
teaching culturally diverse learners: A perspective for practicing teachers. In. J. J. Irvine (Ed.), Critical
knowledge for diverse teachers and learners, pp. 27-87. Washington, D.C.: American Association
of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Cochran-Smith,
M. (1999). Learning to teach for social
justice. In G. Griffin (Ed.), The
education of teachers. Ninety-eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, pp. 114-144. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Cochran-Smith,
M. (2010). Toward a theory of teacher education for
social justice. In M.
Fullan, A. Hargreaves, D. Hopkins, & A. Lieberman (Eds.), The international handbook of educational changes (2nd ed.). New York:
Springer.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry
as stance: Practitioner research in the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural
psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Cruickshank, D. R. (1990). Research
that informs teachers and teacher educators. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa
Educational Foundation.
Dewey,
J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Dewey, J.
(1966). Democracy and
education. New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1916).
Dwyer, C.
A. (1994). Development of the knowledge base for
the Praxis III: Classroom Performance Assessments Assessment Criteria. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher
educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers,
pp. 63-91. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to
practice: Designing a comtinuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Freeman,
L. (2007). An overview of dispositions in teacher
education. In M. E. Diez & J. Raths (Eds.), Dispositions in teacher education (pp. 3-29). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
García, O., Kleifgen, J. A., & Falchi, L. (2008). From
English language learners to emergent bilinguals. Equity
Matters: Research Review No. 1. New York: Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Gimbert, B., Desai, S., & Kerka, S. (2010). The big picture: Focusing urban teacher
education on the community. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2),
36-39.
Glasersfeld, E. von. (1995). Radical
constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: The Falmer Press.
Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational
renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodlad, J. I. (1997). In
praise of education. NY:
Teachers College Press.
Goodwin, A. L. (1997). Introduction. In A. L.
Goodwin (Ed.), Assessment for equity and inclusion: Embracing all our
children, pp. xiii-xvi. NY:
Routledge.
Goodwin, A. L., & Macdonald, M. B. (1997). Educating the rainbow: Authentic
assessment and authentic practice for diverse classrooms. In A. L. Goodwin (Ed.), Assessment
for equity and inclusion: Embracing all our children, pp. 229-240. New York: Routledge.
Irvine, J. J. (1992). Making teacher
education culturally responsive. In
M. E. Dilworth (Ed.), Diversity in teacher education: New expectations,
pp. 79-92. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jeynes, W. (2011). Help families by fostering parental involvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(3), 38-39.
Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational
goals. American
Educational Research Journal, 34(1): 39-81.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). Race still matters:
Critical race theory in education. In M. Apple, W. Au, & L. A. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of critical eduation (pp.
110-122). New York and London:
Routledge.
Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for
practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education,
61(1-2), 21-34.
Lee, J.
(2002). Racial and ethnic
achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity? Educational
Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.
Louden,
W. (1991). Understanding teaching: Continuity
and change in teachers’ knowledge. NY: Teachers College Press.
Lipman,
M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyan, F. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lucas,
T. (1997). Into, through, and beyond secondary
school: Critical transitions for immigrant youths. Washington, D.C. & McHenry, IL:
Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2011). A framework for
preparing linguistically responsive teachers. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for
linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for
teacher educators (pp.
55-72). New York: Routledge.
Maloney, D., Moore, T., & Taylor, M. (2011). Grassroots growth: The evolution of a
teacher study group. Learning Forwards Journal, 32(5), 46-49.
McDiarmid, G.
W., Ball, D. L., & Anderson, C. R. (1989). Why staying one
chapter ahead doesn’t really work: Subject-specific pedagogy. In M. C. Reynolds
(Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. NY: Pergamon Press.
Nicaise, M., Gibney, T. & Crane, M. (2000). Toward an understanding of authentic learning. Student perception of an authentic classroom. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 9, 79-94.
Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming
diversity: The sociopolitical context of education. White Plains, New York: Longman.
Nieto, S. (2005).
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine
approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Noddings, N. (2005). The
challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Oakes, J.,
& Lipton, M. (1994). Tracking and ability grouping: A
structural barrier to access and achievement. In J. Goodlad and P. Keating (Eds.), Access
to knowledge: The continuing agenda for our nation=s schools, pp. 187-204. NY: The College Board.
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R.
(2001). Knowing What Students Know: The science and design of educational
assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Piaget,
J. (1977). The
development of thought: Equilibrium of cognitive structures. Translated by A. Rosin. New York: Viking Press.
Popham, J.W.
(2001). The truth about testing: An
educator’s call to action. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD
Richardson,
V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in
learning to teach. In J.
Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education, 2nd Edition, pp. 102-119. New York:
Macmillan.
Ross, J. A.,
& Regan, E. M. (1993). Sharing professional experience: Its
impact on professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(1), 91-106.
Schön, D.
A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. NY: Basic Books.
Sockett,
H. (2008). The moral and epistemic purposes of
teacher education. In M.
Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 45-65). New York: Routledge.
Soder,
R. (1996). Teaching the teachers of the
people. In R.
Soder (Ed.), Democracy, education and the schools, p. 246. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing
hope and despair: The school and kin support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. NY: Teachers College Press.
Tom, A. R.
(1997). Redesigning teacher education. Albany: SUNY Press.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2002). The condition of
education 2002, NCES 2002-025. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2003). The condition of
education 2003, NCES 2003-067. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Valdés, G., Bunch, G., Snow, C., & Lee,
C., with Matos, L. (2005). Enhancing the development of students’
language(s). In L. Darling-Hammond
& J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 126-168). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Villegas, A. M. (1991). Culturally
responsive teaching for the 1990s and beyond. Washington, D.C.: American Association
of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Villegas,
A.M., & Lucas, T. (2002a). Educating culturally responsive teachers:
A conceptually coherent and structurally integrated approach. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Villegas,
A.M., & Lucas, T. (2002b). Preparing Culturally Responsive
Teachers: Rethinking the Curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, no. 1, pp. 20-32.
Villegas,
A.M. (2007). Dispositions in teacher education: A
look at social justice. Journal of Teacher Education,
58(5), 370-380.
Vygotsky,
L. (1978). Mind
in society. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Zeichner,
K. (1992). NCRTL special report: Educating
teachers for cultural diversity. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, National Center for
Research on Teacher Learning.
Zeichner,
K. (1996). Designing educative practicum
experiences for prospective teachers. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, and M. L.
Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education, pp.
199-214. New York: Teachers College
Press.
(rev. January 2012)
|
