February 2013
University of the
Cumberlands
Education Department
A Conceptual Framework for
Preparing Future Educators
Conceptual
Evaluative Communicative
Strategic
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Page 2
Table of Contents
4.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Character and Spiritual Values .................................................................................................................... 3
The Unit Theme ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Candidate Preparation Model....................................................................................................................... 4
Impact on P-12 Student Learning ................................................................................................................ 4
Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Vision and Mission ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Shared Vision ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Institutional Mission and Vision .................................................................................................................. 6
Unit’s Mission and Vision ........................................................................................................................... 6
4.3 The Unit’s Philosophy, Purposes, and Goals/Organizational Standards ...................................................... 7
Institutional Academic Purpose Statement .................................................................................................. 7
Philosophy, Purposes and Goals of the Unit ................................................................................................ 8
Organizational Standards/Dispositions ........................................................................................................ 8
4.4 Knowledge Bases ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Coherence and Integration of the Conceptual Framework ........................................................................ 10
Research and Support for the Conceptual Framework Theme .................................................................. 11
Research and Support for Knowledge Strands .......................................................................................... 13
4.5 Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Expectations in Standards ............................................................. 16
Alignment of the Conceptual Framework to Standards ............................................................................. 16
Diversity ..................................................................................................................................................... 16
Technology ................................................................................................................................................ 18
Online Delivery .......................................................................................................................................... 20
4.6 Description of the Unit’s Assessment System ............................................................................................ 22
a. Alignment of the Conceptual Framework to the Continuous Assessment Model ................................. 22
b. Transition Points/Key Assessments ....................................................................................................... 25
c. Process for Assuring the Unit’s Assessments are Fair, Accurate, Consistent, and Free from Bias ....... 25
d. System for Handling Candidates Who Have Not Met Unit Expectations ............................................. 27
e. Plan for Evaluating Unit Operations ...................................................................................................... 27
f. Candidate Performance on Assessments Conducted for Admission into Program ................................ 29
g. Summary of a Sample of Candidate Performance at Exit from Programs ............................................. 30
Appendix A: Assessment Pillars & Standards-Based Outcomes Tables ......................................................... 31
Appendix B: Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 43
Page 3
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
4.1 Overview
Character and Spiritual Values
The Education Department is dedicated to the University’s commitment to graduate men and w o m e n
with Christian values derived from spiritual and intellectual experiences. Indeed, one of the program
goals is to continue to foster and develop the appreciation and refinement of ethical and Christian
values in future educators. The Student Handbook also states, “The University expects its students
to conduct themselves, on and off the campus, in a manner which is consistent with the
objectives of the University and with its standards of conduct (p. 121, 2011-
2012). The Unit emphasizes four crucial dispositions that contribute to the character and professional
ethics of candidates. Caring, a strong work ethic, critical and creative thinking as well as a
commitment to excellence and professional integrity are assessed continuously throughout all
programs. Candidates must value the worth and dignities of all human beings, strive for excellence, and
provide educational opportunities for all as stated in Kentucky’s Code of Ethics for Educators
(Educational Professional Standards Board, 2012).
The Unit Theme
The graphic representation of the Unit Theme encompasses the entire building structure which
represents the Luecker Building where the Education Department is housed. Four steps leading into the
building represent the four knowledge strands incorporated in our Conceptual Framework depicting
the foundational process built into the Unit’s Mission and Vision. The cupola at the top of the
building is tradition to the University, and the cross at the top represents the University’s spiritual
connection and commitment to Christian values. The pillars, symbolizing the continuous
assessment checkpoints, are also a traditional architectural feature of the campus.
Page 4
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Candidate Preparation Model
University of the Cumberlands is committed to excellence in educator preparation. The Unit’s mission
supports this commitment by providing strong educational programs that will help candidates develop the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences
through Critical Thinking. Consequently, the Unit’s Candidate Preparation Model (Figure 1) presents a
graphic representation of how collectively, all parties and components of our programs impact P-12
student learning.
Impact on P-12 Student Learning
Through its Mission and Vision, the Unit strives to produce educators who are prepared for the
profession and who possess a well-developed knowledge, philosophy, and understanding of education,
thus having a direct impact on student learning. Candidates are guided through courses and field
experiences which enable them to demonstrate their understanding and commitment to a strong work
ethic, critical and creative thinking, as well as a commitment to excellence and professional integrity.
The Unit is committed to preparing candidates to serve students of varying ability levels, socio-
economic levels, cultural backgrounds, and achievement levels.
Teacher effectiveness and student learning are a mandate for all schools serving P-12 students.
Research has shown that teachers receiving certification after completing a teacher education program
emphasizing core academic skills, subject knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge and skills develop
students who score higher on academic achievement tests than teachers failing to receive the same level
of training in these areas (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin & Heilig,
2005). Darling-Hammond states that practicing strategies in classroom settings are essential to effective
teacher education programs (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden 2007). The Unit prepares effective
teachers by requiring a general education curriculum, subject coursework, and
pedagogical training and practical experiences.
Page 5
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
The Unit also emphasizes Conceptual, Strategic, Evaluative and Communicative Knowledge as basic
components necessary for effective educators desiring to have a positive impact on student learning.
Candidates develop into effective educators through the acquisition of these four strands of
knowledge during coursework, field experiences, student teaching, or practicum.
Additionally, Linda Darling-Hammond and Joan Baratz-Snowden (2007) state that “teachers hone their skills when they undergo a process of learning, experimenting, and reflecting on their practice with feedback from peers and more-expert practitioners. This process strengthens their ability
to implement new approaches and fine-tune their efforts to produce student achievement gains,” (p.
118). Educator preparation programs help provide the training for effective instruction
in the classroom. A study of teacher preparation effectiveness in Houston, Texas, revealed that
uncertified teachers and those in most other non-standard certification categories had negative effects on
student learning. Those teachers who did not pass state teacher certification tests also had negative
effects on student achievement (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, and Heilig,
2005). Thus, the Unit maintains that educator preparation programs at University of the Cumberlands
provide candidates with best practice curricula and standards-based learner tasks that contribute to
student learning in schools. The Continuous Assessment Plan, explained in Element 4.6, provide
evidence of how major tasks and outcomes of University of the Cumberlands’ Initial and Advanced
educator programs impact P-12 learning.
Summary
The Conceptual Framework contains the alignment of the Unit’s theme of Reflective
Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking and its four strands of
Conceptual, Strategic, Evaluative, and Communicative Knowledge to learner outcomes and
achievements based on Kentucky Teacher Standards, ISLLC standards for administrators, Kentucky
Standards for School Counselors, Kentucky Chore Academic Standards, Characteristics of Highly
Effective Teaching and Learning (CHETL), and relevant Specialized Professional Associations
(SPAs). Online programs, as well as on-site programs, also are purposefully aligned with the
conceptual framework. A continuous assessment model in both initial and advanced programs outlines
how the Unit evaluates candidates based on their professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions and
how these directly affect P-12 student learning. Additionally, the set of professional dispositions and
the set of outcomes for diversity
and technology are embedded in the four knowledge strands of the Unit’s Conceptual
Framework. Propelled by a core set of values with a mission and vision to instill a strong work ethic
in Christian values and moral integrity, the Unit’s Conceptual Framework and Continuous Assessment
Plan provide a foundation based on the constructivist’s for faculty to prepare or improve responsible
educational leaders who will effectively and positively impact student learning.
4.2 Vision and Mission
Shared Vision
Since its founding in 1889 as the Williamsburg Institute, University of the Cumberlands has
envisioned higher education as an avenue to improved living for the young people of the Kentucky
mountains. In 1913, the Williamsburg Institute combined with Highland College and changed its
name to Cumberland College. Recently, in 2005, the institution’s name changed again to University
of the Cumberlands (hereafter, “UC). Throughout its existence, UC has always sought to graduate
men and women with Christian values derived from spiritual and intellectual experiences within the
University community as well as from the traditional academic disciplines. The University is also
Page 6
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
committed to a liberal arts education. In the belief that freedom is the result of respect for truth and
concern for humanity, UC, through a traditional liberal arts program, attempts to foster in its students a
heightened awareness of sensitivity to the search for truth and a deepened responsibility toward
humanity. The historical tradition and the present reality are affirmed in the University’s Mission
Statement. Institutional Mission and Vision
Mission: University of the Cumberlands has historically served students primarily, but not exclusively,
from the beautiful mountain regions of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Virginia, Georgia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio and Alabama which have traditionally been described as Appalachia.
The University's impact can be seen in the achievements of its graduates who have assumed roles of
leadership in this region and throughout the nation.
While located in the resort like area of Appalachia, with emphasis primarily on serving the beautiful
mountain area, the university now reaches into every state and around the world through its student
body and alumni.
UC continues to offer promising students of all backgrounds a broad based liberal arts program
enriched with Christian values. The University strives for excellence in all of its endeavors and expects
from students a similar dedication to this pursuit. Its commitment to a strong academic program is
joined with a commitment to a strong work ethic. UC encourages students to think critically and
creatively so that they may better prepare themselves for lives of responsible service and
leadership. This focus of its undergraduate programs is extended and extrapolated into its graduate
programs. These programs also nurture critical and creative thinking in pursuit of the “life-more-
abundant” for both the individual and society. At UC, graduate study prepares professionals to be
servant-leaders in their disciplines and communities, linking research with practice and knowledge
with ethical decision-making.
Vision: The purpose statement for the University of the Cumberlands is congruent with its mission in
offering quality academic programs with Christian values to candidates of all backgrounds. The
foundation of all of our programs at the University of the Cumberlands is our desire to nurture an
increased awareness of the pre-eminence of the spiritual dimensions of human life through an
appreciation of our historic Christian heritage, as well as through an understanding of Biblical truth
and religious values as they apply to daily life.
Unit’s Mission and Vision
In the Unit, the most important professional outcomes for graduates are the possession of a well-
developed philosophy and understanding of education, as well as positive dispositions that help all
students learn. Candidates’ philosophies reflect conceptual, strategic, evaluative, and communicative
knowledge.
The principal goal at University of the Cumberlands is to provide learning experiences that
enable graduates to become so proficient in ethical deliberation that they can use their reflective-
critical thinking and problem-solving skills to become productive members of a democratic society.
They reflect dedication and service in their sensitivity to and tolerance of the values and aspiration of
all members of our society (Dewey, 1974; Glasser, 1990; Hinck & Brandell, 1999; Bandura, 2001;
Palmer, 2004).
To enhance the candidates’ ability to provide for diverse populations, multiple experiences in culturally
and economically diverse settings are essential. These experiences make candidates aware of
dispositions which will result in effective learning environments. The overall purpose or goal of the
Page 7
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Unit supports the University’s purpose to provide quality learning experiences to its candidates. Our
mission statement reaffirms this belief, accurately portraying our commitment to preparing educators
for careers in education.
Mission. The Unit will provide strong initial and advanced academic programs to teacher
candidates and other school personnel that instill in them a commitment to a strong work ethic and
prepare them for lives committed to excellence, professional integrity, and leadership that will impact
student learning. By being Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical
Thinking, graduates will possess the knowledge, skills, dispositions and spiritual values that will serve
the needs of a diverse learning community.
Inspired by this mission, the Unit prepares candidates for the future, especially for the challenges of
impacting student learning. The Unit’s vision is to provide quality programs based on “Best Practice”
strategies and knowledge. The Unit has, therefore, developed the following vision statement.
Vision. The Unit will prepare teacher candidates and other school personnel to be Reflective
Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking and subsequently provide
them with academic and practical experiences. Graduates will possess well-developed philosophies
that will reflect conceptual, strategic, evaluative, and communicative knowledge as well as an
understanding of technology that will help them meet the needs of diverse populations.
The Conceptual Framework Theme communicates the Unit’s vision: Reflective Constructors of Quality
Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking. Meaningful experiences are crucial in student
learning. Before candidates can become effective learners and/or educators , those
experiences must focus their attention on and refine their dispositions on learning tasks. Their
attention and dispositions must be actively engaged in the task (Dewey, 1974; Glasser, 1990; Hinck &
Brandell, 1999; Bandura, 2001; Palmer, 2004).
Because of the rural nature of the student body, our exclusively on-campus delivery system has both
prevented many students from enrolling in our programs and caused personal and professional
challenges for students currently enrolled. In its mission to serve students in Appalachia, the Unit has
incorporated an online delivery of graduate courses. The online delivery offering allows students
the flexibility to take graduate course work that fits their professional and personal goals and
schedules. Further, it allows the University to address the chronic shortage of teachers in our service
region by enabling college graduates throughout underserved portions of Kentucky, Tennessee and
beyond to earn teacher certification. The online delivery does not impact the content of the
curriculum. The curricular requirements for both online and on-site offerings remain the same
regardless of the method of delivery. The University’s online programing has been accredited by the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
4.3 The Unit’s Philosophy, Purposes, and Goals/Organizational Standards
Institutional Academic Purpose Statement
The purpose statement for University of the Cumberlands is consistent with its mission of
offering quality academic programs with Christian values to students of all backgrounds. The
purpose statement appears as follows in the UC catalog: The foundation of all of our programs at University of the Cumberlands is our desire to nurture an
increased awareness of the pre-eminence of the spiritual dimensions of human life through an
appreciation of our historic Christian heritage, as well as through an understanding of Biblical truth
and religious values as they apply to daily life. The University’s mission to offer “a broad- based
Page 8
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
liberal arts program enriched with Christian values” is evidenced in our General Education
curriculum. Along with the University’s other programs, this curriculum attempts to foster in students
“a heightened awareness and sensitivity to the search for truth and a deepened responsibility toward
humankind.” Collectively, the courses taken to fulfill the requirements of the six sections of the
General Education curriculum are intended to provide a breadth of information, an understanding of
critical concepts, and a mastery of skills to support a life-long pursuit not only of professional
achievement but also of “responsible service and leadership.” These endeavors are rooted in an
open exchange of ideas within and among academic disciplines and are framed by a Christian
sense of responsibility toward self, toward society, and toward God.
Philosophy, Purposes and Goals of the Unit
University of the Cumberlands’ tradition of providing “a strong academic program…with a
commitment to a strong work ethic” and its goal of “preparing…students for lives committed to
excellence, professional integrity, and leadership” are imbedded in a conceptual framework for initial
and advanced programs preparing teachers and other school personnel. The theme, Reflective
Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking, accurately portrays the
Department of Education’s philosophy that teachers, along with other education professionals, have
a responsibility to ensure the welfare and enrichment of society. The quality and dispositions of
teachers are primary in the growth and preservation of society. Consequently, both the public and the
teaching profession demand that those entering the profession be fully qualified to accept the
responsibility of being a teacher or other school professional. They must be highly qualified,
knowledgeable, and caring education professionals. Acknowledging that all children can learn, the
Unit is committed to providing training and experiences using research- based “Best Practices” for
teacher education candidates.
The Unit is not the only department involved in teacher preparation. The collaboration of faculty from
other content areas is essential. Hence, the Unit works closely with other university faculty in devising
courses and curricula that provide content information needed for teacher and school personnel
candidates. University faculty participate in departmental faculty meetings and receive copies of the
departmental meeting agendas and minutes. They are also represented on the governance
committees – The Teacher Education Admissions Committee (TEAC) for initial programs and
the Graduate Education Committee (GEC) for advanced programs. It is through these collaborative
activities that program changes are proposed, discussed and approved. In addition, several departments
house teacher-preparation courses. All faculty helping to prepare teacher candidates for careers in
teaching hold Unit membership.
Organizational Standards/Dispositions
Researched for decades has been the relationship of effective teaching to dispositions,
“professional attitudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal and non-verbal behaviors
as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and communities” (NCATE, 2008, pp. 89-90.)
The Unit makes the dispositions of teacher candidates a primary focus because “the quality and
dispositions of our teachers is of primary importance to the growth and preservation of our society”
(University of the Cumberlands Catalog, 2011-2012, p. 63). The most effect ive teachers possess
at t i tudes and beliefs that distinguish them from less effective teachers (Phelps, 2006).
Page 9
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Thornton (2006) concluded that the most effective teachers exhibit “key dispositions that impacted,
even determined how content knowledge and pedagogical skills came to life within the classroom” (p.
66). Thornton also found that further research is needed to determine the role of teacher dispositions
upon effective teaching. Against the backdrop of this salient finding, Helm proposes that proper
teacher dispositions, appropriate training, and certification can have a positive impact on student
learning (Helm, 2006; Helm, 2007). Teachers who are caring and nurturing are more effective and
have students who are more motivated and excel academically (Talbert-Johnson, 2006).
In spring 2002, a committee consisting of UC faculty and public school teachers examined the
dispositions of effective teachers and candidates. The committee held that candidates in teacher
education should be caring adults who display a strong work ethic, who engage in critical and creative
thinking, and who strive for excellence and professional integrity. University Standards eleven (11)
and twelve (12) were created to assess these four dispositions. Unit faculty nurture dispositions in
candidates through coursework, interactions, interviews, and evaluations. These qualities are also
modeled by University faculty in courses and by public school teachers during field experiences,
student teaching, and practicum. Modeling, by example and reflection, and using case studies are
effective ways of shaping candidates’ dispositions (Phelps, 2006).
Candidates are shown that teachers embrace these dispositions in classrooms. These dispositions have
been defined with descriptors and characteristics with which to evaluate candidates. Table 4.3.1
presents the relationship of the Conceptual Framework, Kentucky Teacher Standards, and ISLLC
standards to the four dispositions the Unit has identified as crucial to its educator preparation program.
Table 4.3.1. Relationship of Conceptual Framework and Standards to Dispositions
Disposition CF Standard Assessment Instruments
Caring
Has a positive attitude
Is cooperative
Is respectful of others
Establishes rapport with
diverse populations
Conceptual
Strategic Evaluative
Communicative
Kentucky Teacher Standards
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,
University of the Cumberlands
11, 12
ISLLC Standards
2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Kentucky Counselor Standards
1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Instructor-Assessed
Dispositions
Self-Assessment of
Dispositions
Faculty Evaluations
Recommendations (for
programs admissions)
Field Experience
Supervisor Feedback
Student Teacher
Evaluations from
University Coordinator
Student Teacher
Evaluations from
Supervising Teacher
Portfolio Evaluations
Recommendations/
Strong Work Ethic
Has high expectations for
self
Is dependable
Is timely in completing
responsibilities
Is a self-starter; takes
initiative
Conceptual
Communicative
KY Teacher Standards
2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10
University of the Cumberlands
11, 12
ISLLC Standards
ALL
Kentucky Counselor Standards
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Critical and Creative
Thinking
Is flexible
Provides for all learners
Expresses thoughts and
ideas clearly
Demonstrates ability to
problem solve
Conceptual
Strategic
Evaluative
Communicative
KY Teacher Standards
ALL
University of the Cumberlands
11, 12
ISLLC Standards
ALL
Kentucky Counselor Standards -
ALL
Page 10
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Commitment to
Excellence/ Professional
Integrity
Has a professional
appearance
Uses technology
effectively Demonstrates
leadership abilities Uses
appropriate spoken &
written English
Conceptual
Strategic
Evaluative
Communicative
KY Teacher Standards
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
University of the Cumberlands
11, 12
ISLLC Standards
ALL
Kentucky Counselor Standards
1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Commendation Forms
Dispositions are assessed at several junctures in our continuous assessment model. The assessments are
systematic and supportive of the Unit’s pillars for both initial and advanced programs. By monitoring
candidate dispositions as they progress through the Pillars, the Unit assists candidates in identifying
problems or pitfalls in their professional development. Indeed, candidate dispositions are assessed
by instructors in professional education courses, in teacher education entrance interviews, and by
supervising teachers in the field and in student teaching experiences. Recommendation forms, self-
evaluations, portfolio/eportfolio entries, interviews, and feedback from public school personnel provide
documentation of the university candidates’ dispositions.
These multiple points of disposition evaluation provide data used to implement program improvement
and apprise the candidate of dispositional strengths and growth areas. The addition of dispositions to
the Kentucky Teacher Standards and the Sp ec i a l P r o fe s s i on a l As so c i a t i on ( SP A)
standards is consistent with the Unit’s belief that candidates must have positive dispositions and that
continuous feedback from multiple sources facilitates dispositional growth.
4.4 Knowledge Bases
Coherence and Integration of the Conceptual Framework
To ensure that the teacher candidates at University of the Cumberlands become Reflective
Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking, the education program
provides a structure that is supported by four strands of knowledge: conceptual, strategic, evaluative,
and communicative. One’s existing knowledge is the foundation of all future learning. All previous
experiences color and filter all new experiences (Alexander & Murphy, 1995). Simply stated,
knowledge that learners previously possess is an extremely powerful force in what is valued as
relevant or important as well as in what is comprehended and remembered (Piaget, 1953; Kolb, 1984;
Alexander, Jetton, Kulikowich, & Woehler, 1994; Alverman, Smith, & Readence, 1985; Anderson,
Pichert, & Shirey, 1983; Anderson, Reynolds, Schallert, & Goetz, 1977; Gibson, 1966; Kolb &
Kolb, 2005; Murphy & Alexander, 2006).
The Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS), the S pec i a l P ro fes s io na l Ass oc i a t i o n ( S PA)
standards and University of the Cumberlands’ Standards are embedded in the four strands of
knowledge comprising our Conceptual Framework. Also interwoven throughout these four
strands and throughout all components of the curriculum are diversity and technology.
The knowledge strands that support the Unit Theme (Conceptual, Strategic, Evaluative, and
Communicative), contribute to the knowledge-base of educators. Knowing foundational concepts,
Page 11
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
forming teaching strategies based on those concepts, evaluating the effectiveness of the strategy, and
then communicating the results to all stakeholders are the foundation of Reflective Constructors of
Quality Learning Experiences.
The Unit continues to identify the merits and liabilities of the theme and its knowledge strands. In
addition, the notion of critical thinking is vitally important and is a major strand and expectation in the
Kentucky Teacher Standards as well as in University of the Cumberlands’ Quality Enhancement Plan
(QEP).
Research and Support for the Conceptual Framework Theme
Research and “Best Practices” undergird the Unit Theme. Literature identifies all components of the
theme as being linked to effective teaching and learning. Research-based evidence appears below to
reinforce the phrasing “Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical
Thinking.”
Reflective. Teaching is more than just implementing techniques and strategies. It involves many hours
of research into best practice strategies, action research, and teachers modeling desired behavior in the
classroom (Chant, Heafner & Bennett, 2004). To be truly dynamic professionals, educators must first
become effective. One way to develop the attributes of a dynamic professional is through
reflection upon practice. According to Nietho (2003), “Excellent teachers do not emerge full blown at graduation. Instead, teachers are always in the process of becoming. Given the dynamics of
their work, they need to continuously rediscover who they are and what they stand for … through
deep reflection about their craft” (p. 395-396). Reflections are critical to a candidate’s development as
an educator and add a critical dimension to the educational process (Romano, 2005; Uline, Wilson, &
Cordry, 2004).
The impact of reflection on one’s learning and/or education experience must begin early in the
candidate’s preparation. Research has shown that reflective processes in teacher education have
significant effects on the cognitive development of pre-service teachers (Dunkin Precians, &
Nettle, 1994; Stiggins, 2001; Mac Suibhne, 2009). Doubtless, reflection requires critical thought, self-
awareness, intellectual and practical energy, problem-solving and personal knowledge.
Reflection may be defined in a variety of ways. Rodgers (2002) maintains that “…it might be
taught, learned, assessed, discussed, and researched, and evolve in both meaning and usefulness (p.
844). Amobi (2006) adds, “The ideas of the foregoing proponents of a paradigm shift to emphasis
on highly qualified teaching subsumed two interrelated points of view: (a) the continuing and
unending nature of the process of learning to teach well, and (b) the quintessential need
for reflection as the lighthouse of enlightening the path of every-maturing and self-renewing growth
in teaching” (p. 25).
Reflections are also a way to determine how a candidate’s personal understanding impacts curricular
actions (Chant, Heafner, & Bennet, 2004). Reflections provide useful data that may be the driving
force in educational decision-making and teacher actions. Two of the most popular vehicles for
recording reflections are writing assignments and reflective analysis of teachers in classroom settings
(Amobi, 2006.)
Writing assignments can be linked directly to specific learning ideals and outcomes that directly relate
to time management, classroom discipline, assessments, cultural diversity, and/or accommodations for
students with special needs. Candidates may be taught to write on their perception of the effectiveness
of educators in these areas. They may also be asked to observe teachers in classrooms and write
reflections based on their observations (Uline, Wilson, & Cordry 2004).
The term “reflective” has been incorporated into the unit theme not only because reflection is
linked to the success of teachers, but because reflection is a concept and skill that must be taught,
Page 12
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
understood, and implemented throughout the entire education candidate’s preparation. The Unit
concurs with Spalding and Wilson’s (2002) conclusion that educators must deliberately teach
reflection if they want students to reflect, not just simply assign reflective writing assignments.
Constructivism. The Constructivist Theory is incorporated into the Conceptual Framework Theme
because the Unit believes the learner constructs knowledge based upon personal experiences,
beliefs, and pre-existing mental structures. The teacher is no longer the active transmitter of
knowledge, and the student is no longer the passive receiver. Knowledge is the tentative and relative
result of the learner’s own mental actions (Van Huizen, Van Oers, & Wubbels, 2005; Goubeaud &
Yan, 2004). John Dewey, the theorist most commonly associated with Constructivism, advances this
idea that students construct an understanding of concepts based upon their own experiences or through
the process of thinking or reflection (Dewey, 1974). Piaget might also have agreed with this
theory by arguing that students construct schema or cognitive structures that help them generate their
own rules and mental models, which they then use to make sense of their experiences, both past and
present (Chicoine, 2004).
The concepts of constructivism and performance-based assessment in today’s classrooms are crucial
in the preparation of future teachers (Goubeaud & Yan, 2004). Constructivists contend that the teacher
is the facilitator in the classroom, rather than merely the deliverer of information. The degree to which
students are actively participating in the learning process is critical to their success (Chicoine, 2004;
Goubeaud & Yan, 2004; Palmer, Rowell, & Brooks, 2005). The learners must be actively
constructing rather than passively receiving information (Jonassen, 1991; Phillips, 1995; Weiner,
2002).
Directly linked to student learning and achievement are quality learning experiences that, therefore,
appear in the Conceptual Framework theme (Dewey, 1974; Dunkin Precians, & Nettle, 1994;
Stiggins, 2001; Nietho, 2003; Uline, Wilson & Cordry, 2004; Romano, 2005; Phelps, 2006; Mac
Suibhne, 2009). Likewise, a successful teacher must reflect upon what is taught and what is learned so
the impact on student learning is evident.
People come to situations with knowledge they have gained from past experiences. This knowledge
then influences the development, understanding, implementation, and construction of new knowledge.
Hence, constructivism relates to past experience and is forward-looking into how the world might
be rather than how the world is (Chicoine, 2004). According to Palmer et al. (2005), “The main
proposition of constructivism is that learning means constructing, creating, inventing, and developing
our own knowledge,” (p. 196).
Constructivism incorporates the principles of conceptual or cognitive development from Piaget as
well as the principles of social cognition and the zone of proximal development from
Vygotsky. It forms the theoretical foundations of interactive learning and cognitive strategic
instruction (Harris & Pressley, 1991; Graves, 2001). “Learners construct their own understanding
rather than having it delivered or transmitted to them,” (Kauchak & Eggen, 1998, p. 9). Vygotsky’s
social and learning theory states that students learn through interactions with other people. His key
principle, the zone of proximal development, emerges from the belief that students engaged in
independent activities that are too complex or advanced for their knowledge base learn best by working
in a collaborative setting with more knowledgeable peers or individuals (Palmer et al, 2005). It is with
this base of understanding that collaborated learning formats are included both in face-to-face classes
and with our online courses. Additionally, the students are encouraged to begin thinking of themselves
as pre-professionals and working professionals. During the course work they construct knowledge in
community settings whether on campus or within the virtual community.
Page 13
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Quality Learning Experiences. The Unit theme also refers to Learning Experiences. Only through
quality learning experiences does the constructivist theory work. Based on this belief, it is imperative
that educators and students generate substantial evidence that supports teaching and learning
effectiveness (Maheady, Jabot, Rey & Michielli-Pendl, 2007). Programs are designed to support the
above authors’ statements, “High quality teaching is highly dependent on a thorough understanding of
content, context, and human development, as well as high standards of professionalism” (p.
25).
The value of quality learning experiences is also e mbedded in constructivism as defined by
Dewey and Vygotsky: “For Dewey, a better quality of experience for people has
everything to do with their growth in rich and fruitful ways as individuals and as a community”
(Meadows, 2006, p. 4). Vygotsky’s theory centers on the zone of proximal development and is
supported by several researchers (e.g., Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996;
Putnam & Borko, 2000; Chaiklin, 2003) in their argument that quality learning experiences must
include the study of cognition and learning in the physical and social environment in which learners
participate. Quality Learning Experiences reflect the ongoing application of constructivism, the essence
of reflection and critical thinking.
The entire curriculum and learning/field experiences incorporate diversity so that candidates develop a
global awareness of diverse student populations. Candidates are exposed to a variety of experiences
that prepare them to meet the needs of a diverse student population (Valentin, 2006). These
experiences include case studies, observations, interactive experiences, excursions to urban schools or
instructional settings with diverse populations, working with exceptional students, and purposeful,
interactive campus international events.
Critical Thinking. Critical thinking is a vital component of teaching and learning. Not only must
teachers think critically when they teach; they must also help their students to develop critical
thinking skills. Besides teaching students how to use critical thinking skills, educators must nurture
in them the desire to use these skills. They must make the connection from thinking to
implementation: “Critical thinking has conceptual connections with reflective judgment, problem
framing, higher order thinking, logical thinking, decision-making, problem solving and the scientific
method” (Giancarlo & Facione, 2001, p. 29). Thus, students must develop dispositions to use critical
thinking in situations where the skill is warranted (Halpern, 2000; Abrami et al, 2008).
Halpern also states, “There are identifiable critical thinking skills that can be taught and learned, and
when students learn these skills and apply them appropriately, they become better thinkers” (p. 70). It
is important, therefore, to include critical thinking skills (Elder, 2005). Objectives for students should
be goal-oriented, specific and measurable. They should involve the kind of thinking that centers on
“solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions” (Halpern,
1999, p. 70). In this way, students can begin to develop dispositions to think critically in
situations that warrant that skill.
The notion of Critical Thinking in the Unit theme helps define what knowledge, skills, and dispositions
successful educators must possess. The critical thinking emphasis also supports the Kentucky Teacher
Standards and the campus-wide curricular strands of University of the Cumberlands’ Quality
Enhancement Plan (QEP), which became a foundational instrument used in the 2006 re-accreditation
process with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACs) (UC QEP Document, 2006).
Research and Support for Knowledge Strands
All forms of knowledge are fluid, dynamic, and interactive. The presence or activation of one form
of knowledge can directly or indirectly influence other forms of knowledge (Alexander, Schallert,
Page 14
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
& Hare, 1991). In essence, the knowledge base is the total of all an individual knows and believes. The
knowledge base is not constructed solely of factual or schooled content stored and organized in
memory but is integrated with the knowledge the learner already possesses, which is often
acquired from nonacademic life experiences (Gardner, 1991). Recognizing that there are different
forms of knowledge, the Unit has identified four different types (strands) of knowledge that educator
preparation programs must address. Indeed, these four different types of knowledge are the
foundational supporting strands of the Conceptual Framework: Conceptual Knowledge, Strategic
Knowledge, Evaluative Knowledge, and Communicative Knowledge. Conceptual Knowledge. The first strand, Conceptual Knowledge, represents an individual’s knowledge of concepts and ideas. Specifically, Conceptual Knowledge requires an understanding of the concepts embedded in the subject area that is being taught. (Hogan, Rabinowitz, & Craven, 2003). Conceptual Knowledge is also rich in relationships and understanding and cannot be learned by rote, but by thoughtful, reflective learning (Rittle-Johnson & Alibali, 1999). Conceptual Knowledge surfaces in at least five different forms: concrete, abstract, verbal, non- verbal, and process-oriented. Conceptual Knowledge can also be labeled or categorized as content knowledge, domain knowledge, discipline knowledge, and discourse knowledge (Alexander, Schallert, & Hare, 1991). These four categories still adhere to the notion that Conceptual Knowledge is a connected web of knowledge that links relationships to discrete facts (Rittle-Johnson & Alibali, 1999). As candidates acquire Conceptual Knowledge from their professional education core courses and from classes in their chosen field, they develop a conceptual understanding of philosophy, theory, and instructional techniques that set the foundation for higher learning and critical thinking. Strategic Knowledge. The second of the four strands represents Strategic Knowledge, which identifies intentional actions selected to achieve specific goals. Strategies are used to execute and accomplish the learning processes. Strategic Knowledge includes all reflective deliberation of learning situations that require metacognitive processes in relation to one’s Conceptual Knowledge. University of the Cumberlands’ goal is to provide multidimensional learning experiences in all programs that encourage candidates to continually test and refine their views of teaching and learning (Moss, 1997). At the same time, candidates develop learning strategies that enable them to monitor and reflect upon their own learning experiences. Specifically, this strategic approach is applied to the planning of goals for implementation of lessons, procedures, and instruction executed in the classroom (Alexander & Judy, 1988). Professional education course work emphasizes strategies appropriate for a diverse population. Becoming strategic learners enables candidates to realize the role of being Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking. Research findings reveal that a direct relationship exists between educator preparation programs instilling Strategic Knowledge and higher student scores. According to a number of studies, “students’ achievement is significantly related to whether their teachers are fully prepared or certified in the field they teach, after other teacher and student characteristics are controlled” (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005, p.25). Courses focusing on Strategic Knowledge are content oriented; students gain knowledge within various content areas, and begin to develop strategic ways in which to integrate this knowledge into instruction, assessment, and supervision. Evaluative Knowledge. The third strand of University of the Cumberlands’ conceptual framework is Evaluative Knowledge. Because teachers spend more than half of their day in designing assessment activities (Plake, 1993), it is vitally important that candidates know how to develop and implement evaluations. Assessment involves evidence gathering and instructional decision making to see how instruction impacts student learning (Heritage, 2007; Moore, 2006). Teachers need a clear understanding of these processes. Also, assessment must align with instructional goals. The acquisition of Evaluative Knowledge is a continuous process, which provides skills to effectively develop evaluations and to accurately link assessment to effective instruction. Neill (2006) states that researchers have found that effective formative assessments have a strong
Page 15
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
impact on student achievement, especially that of low-achieving students. Therefore, the Unit prepares
candidates to become critically reflective teachers and evaluators through knowledge of a variety of
evaluative tools, techniques, and processes. These assessment methods include standardized testing,
curriculum-based assessment, observation, feedback, critical self and peer reflection, and consultation
or conferencing (Barry, 1994; Gronlund & Linn, 1990; Reeves, 2007; Westwood, 2008).
Just as knowledge is a discovery process empowering learners through exercise of intelligence
(Gardner, 1983), discussion promotes and affects attitudes (Vygotsky, 1997) for a wide spectrum of
student outcomes. Educators should be aware of and use multiple and alternative means of
assessing and evaluating student outcomes in ways that are standardized, performance-based,
continuous, and authentic. Performance-based assessments are consistent with the constructivist
learning process and are usually considered more authentic than traditional assessments
(Wiggins, 1998; Stiggins, 2002). Since assessment is ongoing, reciprocal, and systematic, University of
the Cumberlands prepares candidates to be multi-dimensional evaluators in approach and disposition,
and to become educators who make appropriate provisions for assessment processes that address
cognitive, social, cultural, and physical diversity. Evaluative Knowledge is modeled and nurtured
through course work which concentrates on further integration of knowledge as well as on evaluation
and assessment.
Communicative Knowledge. McGlinn (2003) agrees regarding the importance of learning how to
communicate. She contends that students “must have the opportunity to articulate … beliefs and the
university supervisor and the cooperating teacher must allow those beliefs to shape the focus of
observations and conferencing” (p. 144). In its broadest sense, Communicative Knowledge is
introduced in the first course in the professional education course sequence for initial programs.
EDUC 235, Basic Concepts Concerning Education, engages candidates in a field experience
component. They must observe teachers in educational settings and must communicate with these
teachers and their University professors through written and/or verbal reflection and analysis. This
communication is carried through in the candidates’ course sequence. Instructors of these courses and
school faculty must develop a strong collaborative relationship and ongoing communication to ensure
the effectiveness of the field experience (Allsopp, DeMarie, Alvarez- McHatton, & Doone, 2006).
Communication is essential during the student teaching or practicum experience as candidates
synthesize Conceptual, Strategic, and Evaluation knowledge in order to communicate knowledge to
others. New knowledge and collective thinking are encouraged as student teachers or practicum
candidates are required to collaborate with peers and public school personnel (Schmoker, 2006). To
ensure that learning experiences during this phase are quality ones, University of the Cumberlands
follows the guidelines for placement with care. Added to the requirements outlined by the Kentucky
Education Professional Standards Board, the Unit maintains ongoing dialogues with public
school supervising teachers in which goals, expectations, and portfolio components are
discussed. Using the Kentucky Teacher Intern Program Intern Performance Record (KTIP-IPR)
observation document, University Coordinators evaluate student and practicum teachers during at least
two of the four formal observations in the fourteen-week teaching semester. They then hold
conferences with the student teachers to communicate the results of their observations. Courses in advanced programs require candidates to articulate Communicative knowledge into actual
instruction. Candidates implement the knowledge that they have gained and then reflect upon the
process as well as the results. Thus, candidates communicate what they have learned in the form of
effective classroom instruction. Indeed, Britzman (1991) states that learning to teach is a social process
of negotiation rather than an individual problem of behavior. Field and clinical experiences at the
advanced level employ all of the appropriate Kentucky and National standards.
Page 16
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
4.5 Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Expectations in Standards
Alignment of the Conceptual Framework to Standards
The Unit theme, “Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical
Thinking” and its four encompassing knowledge strands (Conceptual, Strategic, Evaluative and
Communicative) are derived from candidate proficiencies and outcomes pertaining to the
standards governing initial and advanced programs. The Conceptual Framework and its
alignment with program standards help ensure that candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills and
dispositions that help all students learn. In tandem, they also guide Unit faculty and all
stakeholders in program evaluations and data-based program improvement decisions. Table 4.5.1
represents how each strand of the Conceptual Framework aligns with performance standards.
Table 4.5.1. Conceptual Framework Alignment with Standards for Initial & Advanced Programs Knowledge Strand KY Teacher Standards ISLLC KSC
Conceptual 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, UC 11, 12 I, II, III, IV, V, VI 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Strategic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, UC 11, 12 I, II, III, V 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12
Evaluative 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 8, 10, UC 11 I, II, III, V 4, 7, 8, 11, 12
Communicative 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, UC 12 I, III, IV, VI 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Diversity
Diversity is central to the mission of the University and Education Department as shown in the
University Mission Statement: University of the Cumberlands offers “students of all backgrounds a
broad based liberal arts program enriched with Christian values” (University of the Cumberlands
Catalog, 2011-2012, p. 3). The Education Department strives to reinforce in students the responsibility
of the teaching profession “to ensure that the welfare of society is safeguarded and enhanced”
(University of the Cumberlands Catalog 2011-2012, p. 85). A conceptual knowledge base and varied
learning experiences are essential to an understanding of and tolerance for diverse perspectives and
fundamental morals.
The entire curriculum and learning/field experiences incorporate diversity so that candidates develop a
global awareness of diverse student populations. Candidates are exposed to a variety of experiences
that prepare them to meet the needs of a diverse student population (Valentin, 2006). These
experiences include case studies, observations, interactive experiences, excursions to urban schools or
instructional settings with diverse populations, working with exceptional students, and purposeful,
interactive campus international events. These experiences include case studies, observations, and
interactive experiences that are authentic, real-life student scenarios. Students are exposed to field
experiences in student teaching, practicums, and internships. These intentional and purposeful experiences
are designed to explore the rich diversity found in the school population. For example, UC students work
with students with special needs, urban schools providing instruction for students from various racial and
ethnic backgrounds, and all Socio-economic levels. Students explore first hand instructional strategies
that will address the barriers to learning experienced by such diverse populations. In addition, UC
students participate and interact with the international students experiencing the diversity and richness of
their culture. Self-awareness and reflection instill within candidates the ability to develop an understanding of and
sensitivity to diverse student populations. Candidates become concerned for promoting
social justice through equity for all students (Garmon, 2006). Candidates learn the importance of
Page 17
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
educating diverse learners by welcoming, supporting, and preparing successful learning opportunities
for all students (Barnes, 2006). Table 4.5.2 illustrates program outcomes, as well as evidence that
diversity is addressed in both initial and advanced programs.
Table 4.5.2. Diversity – Program Outcomes and Major Sources of Evidence
KY
Teacher
Std.
ISLLC
Std.
Course Program Outcomes Major Sources of Evidence
2 II, IV Initial Advanced
EDUC 237 EDUC 698
ELEM 237 EDUC 699
ELMS 237 READ 630
SPED 237 READ 631
EDUC 492 READ 632
EDUC 493
SPED 499
ELEM 430
ELMS 430
EDUC 432
All Student Teaching Sections
Designs lesson plans
that include and
specify strategies and
instruction that meet
the needs of all
learners.
Written Lesson
Plans Portfolio
Entries Standard
Based Units
Lesson plan with methodologies
that work with minority groups.
3 I, IV Initial Advanced
EDUC 237 EDUC 635
ELEM 237
ELMS 237
SPED 237
ELEM 430
ELMS 430
EDUC432
All student teaching sections
Establishes a learning
environment based on the
needs and backgrounds of
all students.
Communicates high
expectations for all
learners.
Observations by P-12 &
University supervisors.
Self and Peer Evaluations Profile
worksheet on demographics of
students by socio-economic
status. Lessons in P-12
setting/supervising teacher and
mentor feedback.
4 IV, V, VI Initial Advanced
EDUC 237 EDAD 641
ELEM 237 EDUC 537
ELMS 237 EDUC 538
SPED 237 EDUC 539
ELEM 430 READ 630
ELMS 430 READ 631
EDUC 432 READ 632
All student teaching sections
Utilizes the instruction
and behavior
management strategies
that meet the needs of
all students.
Utilizes assessment data to accommodate
and provide for all
students
Uses curriculum and
pedagogical guides.
Observations by P-12 &
University supervisors.
Teacher/Student Interaction
Analysis.
Assessment analysis, gap areas,
“next instructional steps”.
Summative assessment on need
for diversity in school/district
administrators.
Embedded course performance
assessments.
(Paper-consider research or
reflective response) on how to
manage diversity.
Formative/Summative evaluation
on dialect diversity in literacy.
Page 18
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
5 Initial
EDUC 237
ELEM 237
ELMS 237
SPED 237
ELEM 430
EDUC 430
EDUC 432
All student teaching sections
Creates and uses a
variety of assessments
that provide all students
with opportunity to
demonstrate learning
Portfolio Entries
Modified Open
Response
Questions
Standard Based Unit
Analysis of student
work (TPA)
7 IV, V, VI Initial Advanced
EDUC 237 SPED 530
ELEM 237 EDAD 531
ELMS 237 EDAD 636
SPED 237 EDUC 632
ELEM 430
ELMS 430
EDUC 432
All student teaching sections
Reflects on effectively
meeting the needs of all
learners
Modified Assessment
TPA
Written reflections
Oral reflections during
conferences
Self and peer
assessments Position
paper on students with
diverse disabilities and
exceptionalities
Evaluative case studies
on racial diversity,
exceptionality and
tolerance
Reflection on diverse
learning styles
UC
Stds.
11, 12
Initial
EDUC 237
ELEM 237
ELMS 237
SPED 237
ELEM 430
ELMS 430
EDUC 432
All student teaching sections
Demonstrates the ethic
of caring for all
students
Uses critical thinking
skills to design and
implement appropriate
instructional strategies
and assessments that
meets the needs of all
students
Demonstrates a strong
work ethic by
persevering in meeting
diverse learner needs
Demonstrates a
commitment to
excellence and
professional ethics
having high
expectations for self and
all students
Course evaluation forms
Formative and Summative P-12
and University supervisors’
forms
Self evaluations
Teaching and Learning Context
(TPA)
Diverse experience
documentation/reflections
Technology
Technology allows for a current, collaborative performance-based approach to evaluation. Educators at
UC believe that technology integration enhances learning and promotes a dynamic, constructivist
approach to augment scholarship (Vannatta & Beyerback, 2000). Technology has changed the world and
is a powerful avenue to academic success. The Unit seeks to instruct both initial and advanced candidates
to develop instructional methods that utilize technology to enable P-12 students to solve problems and
think critically about information (Katz & Macklin, 2007). With a variety of technologies, candidates
plan and implement instruction, communicate with professors, conduct academic research and
complete assignments. Candidates are taught how to use software applications and hardware, how to
Page 19
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
maintain an electronic portfolio, and how to use technology to improve learning. In order to develop and
implement technology in their own lesson plans, candidates must understand the connection between
technology and learning and the strategies useful in developing meaningful lesson plans (Mims,
Polly, Shepherd & Inan, 2006). To meet the needs of the P-12 student, technology should be
infused across the curriculum, not just taught in stand-alone courses (Littrell, M. Zagumny, & L.
Zagumny, 2005). According to the Kentucky Teacher Standards, “The teacher uses technology to
support instruction; access and manipulate data; enhance professional growth and
productivity; communicate and collaborate with colleagues, parents, and the community; and
conduct research.” Technology builds knowledge, and technology literacy is a communicative tool
necessary for all education candidates, not only during the educational process but also
throughout their professional lives.
University of the Cumberlands has embedded technology standards into its professional
education curriculum. All education candidates are required to take a computer software course that
includes hands-on experience with word processing and presentation software packages. Faculty
members and field experience supervisors model and demonstrate a variety of technology
applications. In addition, throughout their coursework, candidates conduct research using the Library’s
online databases and other web-based resources. Technology usage in professional education courses is
outlined in Tables 4.5.3 and 4.5.4.
Table 4.5.3. Initial Program – Major Technology Usage and Proficiencies/Tasks/Outcomes
Course Proficiencies/Tasks/Outcomes
EDUC 235 Smartboard, group projects
SPED 233 CD, DVD, LiveText (eportfolio)
EDUC/ELEM/ ELMS/
SPED 237
ELEM/ELMS 331
Lesson plans, SmartBoard, LiveText (eportfolio)
EDUC 331 Internet searches, DVD Clips, CD’s
ELEM/ELMS 338 Technology generated reading journal
ELEM 339 Web Quests, Science equipment available in P-12 settings
SPED 331 PowerPoint, internet research, audio/videos
SPED 432
SPED 433
Lesson Plans, Internet searches, LiveText, Assessment analysis with Excel
EDUC 432, ELEM/
ELMS 430, EDUC 492,
EDUC 493, ELEM/
ELMS 491, SPED 435,
SPED 436, SPED 499
Lesson Plans, LiveText, SmartBoard, KET/Encylomedia, Assessment analysis with Excel
ART 331 Research on Internet, Lesson Plans
BMIS 130 Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access
HLTH 438 Internet research, resource files, PowerPoint, Lesson Plans
MATH 332 Geometry Sketch Pad, Spreadsheets, Calculators, Website assessments
PSYC 232 PowerPoint, DVD clips, CD’s
PSYC 238 PowerPoint, DVD Clips, Library Database
Page 20
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Table 4.5.4. Advanced Program – Major Technology Usage and Proficiencies/Tasks/Outcomes
Course Proficiencies/Tasks/Outcomes
EDUC 533 Word-Processing Evaluation
Internet Evaluation
Instructional Software Evaluation
Hardware Evaluation
STI/Infinite Campus-Administrative Software Evaluation
Technology Plan Evaluation
EDUC 630
EDUC 635
PowerPoint, online search engines, Electronic databases, data analysis software, computer
random sample
programs, Presentation Software EDUC 633 Technology Plan Evaluation
Data Management Program and Software Appraisal
Technology Networking Technology Conduct and Ethics School/District Website Design
EDUC 698
EDUC 699
Technology Usage in Classroom Chart during student teaching/practicum
EDAD 633 Database and Data Set Input/Analysis with EXCEL and SPSS and Word.
Boomerang (survey program) proficiency
EDAD 637 Law Crawler
EXCEL
Audio/Videos from MPR & PBS
All Courses
(Online)
Various search engines
Internet course delivery
Chat
Discussion Threads
PowerPoint
Electronic Scorer
Word documents
Online Delivery
University of the Cumberlands was one of the first institutions of higher education to develop
graduate educational programs that are entirely online. Ample research was completed prior to
making this decision. Clark (1994) stated that the delivery method of courses has little effect on student
outcomes. It is the method of instruction and the content of the course that lead to understanding.
Another study conducted by Timothy Braun at Loyola Marymount found that most students believed
that the quality of online instruction was equal to that of traditional instruction. Nearly seventy-five
percent (75%) of the group that participated in the study reported that online courses were much more or
slightly more demanding (Braun 2008).
After a review of six studies on the effectiveness of computer conferencing, Kearsley, Lynch, & Wizer
(1995) determined that “the overwhelming conclusion from these studies is that computer
conferencing works very well for graduate level education (p.37) Moreover, in a survey of 250 teachers,
Dorbin (1999) found that “85% of faculty felt that student learning outcomes in online education were
comparable or better to those found in face-to-face classrooms” (p. 6). Weiner (2003) found that online
learning significantly improved writing and computer skills in courses.
The amount of online resources available through the web including journals and relevant web sites also
provide a rich source of resources for the online learner (Thurmond, 2003). Online delivery also helps to
Page 21
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
remove instructor bias or favoritism. Indeed, comparing student scores by blind-scoring tests in
graduate online and face-to-face courses, Fallah & Ubell, (2000) found “average score for the online
class was 5 points (5%) higher than for the on-campus class” (p. 12).
All modes of instructional delivery must consider students’ learning styles and preferences. Some
students prefer face-to-face courses, and some prefer online course. Diaz & Cartnal (1999) suggest that
students who excel in face-to-face courses are dependent thinkers, are competitive, favor collaboration,
are concrete thinkers and are motivated by extrinsic rewards. Conversely, online students are not
driven by competition as they tend to favor collaboration. They are abstract thinkers and are
primarily intrinsically driven. Sarasin (1998) goes further by suggesting that teachers must be cognizant
of these different learning styles, and notes that “instructors should be willing to change their teaching
strategies and techniques based on an appreciation of the variety of student learning styles …. [T]he
proper question is not whether distance education is comparable to a hypothetical ‘traditional’ or face-to-
face instruction, but if there is enough interaction between the learner and the instructor for the learner
to find meaning and develop new knowledge” (p. 2).
University of the Cumberlands continues to review the most current literature in online education as a
guiding tool. The January, 2013, Babson Survey Research Group’s findings reflect one of the most
comprehensive and current studies regarding online education. As a result of the Sloan Consortium and
Pearson partnership, the study provides current data. Beginning in 2006, the College Board agreed to
include online enrollment questions as part of their Annual Survey of Colleges. First, for every year of
this report, online education has increased at rates far in excess of those of overall higher education. The
number of students taking at least one online course increased by over five hundred and seventy thousand
students to a new total of over six million. The proportion of all students taking a least one online course
is at an all-time high of thirty percent (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
In addition, the reports in this research series have consistently found most chief academic officers rate
the learning outcomes for online education “as good as or better than” those for face-to-face instruction.
In the first report of this series in 2003, 57.2 percent of academic leaders rated the learning outcomes in
online education as the same or superior to those in face-to-face. That number is now 77 percent.
Academic leaders at institutions with online offerings have a much more favorable opinion of the relative
learning outcomes for online courses than do at institutions with no online offerings (Allen & Seaman,
2013, p. 5)
Furthermore, previous reports in this series noted the proportion of institutions that see online education
as a critical component of their long-term strategy has shown small by steady increases overtime. When
the report series began in 2002, less than one-half of all higher education institutions reported online
education as critical to their long-term strategy. That number is now close to seventy percent. Likewise,
the proportion of institutions reporting online education is not critical to their long-term strategy has
dropped to a new low of 11.2 percent. (Allen & Seaman, 2013, P.4)
Further, the 2012 Babson Survey Research Group results noted in earlier findings of this report series,
contrary to some expectations, teaching online courses requires more time and effort from faculty than
teaching a course face-to-face. Currently, the percent of academic leaders that believe it takes more
faculty time and effort to teach online has increased from 41.4 percent in 2006 to 44.6 in 2012. (Allen &
Seaman, 2013, p. 6)
Current research regarding online learning is vital to the University of the Cumberlands as it carefully and
purposefully plans and continually addresses the rigor and changes in online education. Faculty members
are trained in online best practices such as: Differentiating instruction to meet the learning styles of all
students, creating a supportive online course community, sharing a set of very clear expectations for
students, using both synchronous and asynchronous activities, preparing posts that invite questions,
Page 22
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
discussions, reflections and responses, and combining core concept learning with customized and
personalized training.
Further, instructional and technical strategies are utilized by faculty members to maximize learning such
as: Synchronous chat/class each week providing real time problem-solving opportunities, authentic
learning that fosters creativity using Bloom’s Taxonomy, concept learning as postulated by Vygotsky-
teach in a linear fashion but apply concepts within case studies combining concepts and principles within
a context, discussion forums that include collaborative and more reflective activities; use of early
feedback surveys to correct and modify instruction; Socratic-type probing and follow-up questions;
taped/archived classes; video and audio to not only teach but also to demonstrate projects; video
conferences; online quizzes/exams; assignments that are posted and electronically scored; e-mail,
telephone, and accurate, real time technology assistance to both students and faculty members.
University of the Cumberlands online delivery model focuses on meeting the unique needs of each
student and how that student can best be served in an online learning community. Priority is placed on
the interaction and engagement of the student with core concepts and knowledge of the course. This
online delivery model accommodates a myriad of learning styles and student needs as UC strives to
provide the state- of- the-art online education.
4.6 Description of the Unit’s Assessment System
a. Alignment of the Conceptual Framework to the Continuous Assessment Model
The Unit has developed a continuous assessment model that represents the checkpoints or Pillars at
which candidate performances are assessed. This model also serves as a graphic representation of how
the Conceptual Framework is interwoven throughout the candidate preparation process. At each Pillar,
candidates are assessed and evaluated on coursework, dispositions, and performance criteria. These
criteria may be in the form of formative evaluations, standardized tests, portfolios and summative
evaluation, which incorporates candidate evaluation on Kentucky Teacher, ISLLC, KSC, and UC
Standards. Data is aggregated for feedback to faculty and is used to help facilitate program improvement
and/or change. All programs have three Pillars at which candidates are assessed.
As candidates progress through their programs, the Unit’s Continuous Assessment Pillars provide
checkpoints for the assessment of candidates’ acquisition of knowledge and toward becoming Reflective
Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking. The four strands are evident
at all Pillars and build upon one another. Although they are not exclusively addressed at each Pillar,
they are emphasized at these checkpoints. For example, early field experiences provide opportunities
for candidates to apply their Communicative Knowledge based on the Constructivist theory to encourage
communication between the teacher and the students and also between the students themselves. In
student teaching, candidates apply their Communicative Knowledge through discussions and by search
out students’ understanding of and prior experiences with a concept before teaching it. Similarly,
principal candidates are given the opportunity to discuss with practicing school administrators a variety
of issues they are certain to face.
Initial Programs. Table 4.6a.1 represents an example of how these knowledge strands relate to
teacher preparation at University of the Cumberlands. At Pillar I, candidates enter the university and
develop Conceptual, Strategic, Evaluative and Communicative knowledge through introductory course
work and field experiences.
Once candidates are admitted to Pillar II, they continue to explore and develop strategies of teaching that
will positively affect student learning. They also communicate this knowledge to P-12 students and
Page 23
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
evaluate its effectiveness through field experiences. In Pillar III, candidates are placed in student
teaching field experiences that allow them to consistently put into practice all forms of knowledge that
will impact P-12 student learning.
Table 4.6a.1. Knowledge Strands Related to Pillars Pillar I Pillar II Pillar III
Conceptual Candidates are introduced to
basic
educational concepts and
philosophies (i.e.:
constructivism, critical
thinking). Candidates develop
concrete, abstract, verbal,
non-verbal and process
conceptual knowledge
through coursework and field
experiences.
All Standards Assessed –
Pillar 1 criteria 2.0 on 3.0
scale, Pillar II criteria 2.5
on 3.0 scale, Pillar III 2.75
on 3.0 scale
Candidates reflect on all
conceptual knowledge types
and base decisions on that
knowledge’s impact on
student learning
All Standards Assessed –
Pillar 1 criteria 2.0 on
3.0 scale, Pillar II criteria 2.5
on 3.0 scale, Pillar III criteria
2.75 on
3.0 scale
Candidates reflect on all
conceptual
knowledge, the
constructivists’ theory, and
critical thinking. They put
knowledge into practice as
classroom teachers.
All Standards Assessed –
Pillar 1 criteria
2.0 on 3.0 scale,
Pillar II criteria
2.5 on 3.0 scale,
Pillar III criteria
2.75 on 3.0 scale
Strategic Candidates use concepts to develop strategies to
use in field and
clinical experiences. Candidates develop,
practice and modify strategies to teach
concepts and skills. They reflect on the
strategies and their impact on student
learning.
All Standards Assessed –
Pillar 1 criteria 2.0 on 3.0 scale, Pillar II
criteria 2.5 on 3.0 scale, Pillar III 2.75 criteria
on 3.0 scale
Candidates reflect on all strategies and their
impact on student learning. They apply best
practices and effective strategies in the
classroom.
All Standards Assessed -
Pillar 1 criteria 2.0 on 3.0 scale,
Pillar II criteria 2.5 on 3.0 scale,
Pillar III criteria 2.75 on 3.0
scale
Evaluative Candidates begin to examine
formative and summative evaluation,
performance evaluation, and acquire the skills
and knowledge to assess the impact on student
learning.
All Standards Assessed -
Pillar 1 criteria 2.0 on 3.0 scale,
Candidates use formative and summative
evaluation, performance
evaluation and self-evaluation knowledge and
strategies to assess student learning of concepts
and skills.
All Standards Assessed -
Pillar 1 criteria 2.0 on 3.0 scale, Pillar II
criteria 2.5 on 3.0 scale, Pillar III criteria 2.75
on 3.0 scale
Advanced Programs. In a similar fashion, advanced program candidates progress through their
programs building upon the four knowledge strands. Beginning after their entrance to the University at
Pillar IV, candidates develop Conceptual, Strategic, Communicative and Evaluative
Knowledge that they will use to positively affect student learning. These four strands of knowledge are
reinforced and continually assessed in all coursework. Field experiences are a part of the curriculum for
several courses in each degree program so candidates can implement and practice their knowledge
Page 24
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
learning in a P-12 setting. Table 4.6a.2 epresents an example of how these strands are related to
advanced educator preparation at University of the Cumberlands. At Pillar VI, advanced candidates
graduate from University of the Cumberlands and use all four of the Conceptual Framework strands to
continue to continue to develop as successful educators.
Table 4.6a.2. Initial Graduate and Advanced Programs Integration of the Four Knowledge Strands
Strand Pillar IV - Admission Pillar V - Continuous
Assessment
Pillar VI - Exit
Conceptual Entrance requirements
(GPA, Entrance
examinations, writing
sample) measure:
KTS 1
Letters of
Recommendation measure:
University of the
Cumberlands 11
Candidates are introduced to
and revisit basic
educational concepts and
philosophies (i.e.:
constructivism, critical
thinking) Candidates reflect
on all conceptual knowledge
strands and base decisions
on that knowledge’s impact
on student learning
KTS 1, 2, 6
KCS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11
Candidates reflect on all
conceptual knowledge,
constructivists’ theory, and
critical thinking. They put
knowledge into practice as
classroom teachers.
KTS 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10
KCS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12
Strategic Writing Sample Candidates develop, practice
and modify
strategies to teach
concepts. They reflect on
the strategies and their
impact on student
learning.
Candidates use concepts to
develop strategies to use in
field experience
KTS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
KCS 4, 5, 6, 8, 10
Candidates reflect on all
strategies
and their impact on student
learning and put into practice
as classroom teachers.
KTS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10
KCS 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12
Evaluative Candidates use formative and summative evaluation, performance
evaluation and
self-evaluation knowledge to assess student learning.
Candidates begin to examine formative and summative
evaluation, performance evaluation knowledge to assess
their impact on student learning.
KTS 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10
KCS 4, 7, 8, 11, 12
Communi-
cative
Writing Sample Candidates use oral, visual, and electronic communication to
relay knowledge to
students. They also communicate with parents, colleagues, and
others
Candidates use communicative knowledge with P-12 partners
and students through observation and/or participation in field
experiences.
KTS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10
KCS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Page 25
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
b. Transition Points/Key Assessments
To evaluate program outcomes, the Unit uses multiple measures to assess its effectiveness. These
assessments are compiled and reviewed at various intervals in both the initial and advanced programs. These
points of reference are identified as Pillars. Each Pillar is a checkpoint that assesses candidates’ preparation
for continuation through the educator preparation program. Tables 5-8 show requirements and key
assessments for progression through each Pillar for both initial and advanced programs. The Conceptual
Framework knowledge strands serve as the foundation for the Pillars, outcomes, and assessments.
Initial Teacher Education Programs
At the Initial Undergraduate Pillar I and Initial Graduate Pillar IV, pre-candidates must meet requirements
for admission to teacher education while at the Initial Undergraduate Pillar II and Initial Graduate Pillar V
candidates must meet requirements to be admitted into student teaching. Likewise, at the Initial
Undergraduate Pillar III and Initial Graduate Pillar VI candidate records are reviewed to verify that
candidates applying for graduation have met all program requirements. Therefore, the criteria listed in
Tables 4.6b.1 and 4.6b.2 within Appendix A are the requirements needed to pass through each pillar to the
next point of review.
Advanced Teacher Education Programs and Certifications
At Pillar IV, candidates enter the University’s advanced programs if they are in compliance with the
graduate admission standards. Candidates are continuously assessed through GPA, field experiences,
PRAXIS II scores, and other standards-based requirements outlined in specific coursework and at each
Pillar. Where applicable, Kentucky Teacher, KCS and ISLLC Standards are assessed through course
embedded assignments and targeted course grades. Exit assessments for advanced candidates include
comprehensive written examinations, comprehensive exam, a Thesis, and/or a portfolio (2007-2009). More
information on how advanced candidates are continuously assessed is provided in the Data Collection,
Analysis and Evaluation section.
At Pillar IV, records are checked to verify that all candidates applying for admission have met all of the
program requirements, including GPA, letters of recommendation, and PRAXIS II, Miller’s, and GRE
scores, as applicable. Therefore, the criteria listed in Tables 4.6b.3 and 4.6b.4 within Appendix A for each
Pillar, are the requirements needed to enter and successfully complete the advanced program (see planned
programs for exact requirements by program).
c. Process for Assuring the Unit’s Assessments are Fair, Accurate, Consistent, and Free from Bias
The use of multiple measures at each Pillar helps ensure candidates are assessed fairly, accurately, and
consistently. A continuous tracking of key assessments at Pillars I, II and III in initial programs and Pillars
IV, V, and VI in advanced programs indicate the validity of quality performance assessment measures. The
KTIP IPR, which has been evaluated for reliability, is the model for many of the unit’s major assessment
templates or rubrics. Portfolio assessments for initial admission to and exit from undergraduate programs are
conducted by two faculty reviewers. Each faculty member independently reads and scores the portfolio
entries using established rubrics which are based on the Kentucky and University standards. Following the
candidate’s portfolio oral defense, the team of reviewers, using a professional judgment model, reaches
consensus in assigning the scores. Initial Graduate Exit Capstone Projects are assessed by both the
EDOL698/699 Course Instructor and a P-12 External Evaluator in the same manner as Initial Undergraduate
candidates. Prior to the assessment process, rubrics and written guidelines are provided to candidates to
enhance fairness and consistency.
Several other means of ensuring fairness, accuracy, and consistency for assessing the unit’s candidates are:
Page 26
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
The Teacher Education Committee (TEAC). This committee serves initial program candidates and consists
of P-12 representatives, University administrators, support staff, and departmental faculty and/or chairs from
all other University of the Cumberlands’ academic areas that are directly involved with teacher certification.
The TEAC reviews and votes on candidates’ application to Teacher Education at Pillar II. In addition, the
TEAC reviews and votes on all additions, deletions, revisions, and changes in initial teacher education
programs.
The Graduate Education Committee (GEC.) This committee serves in a similar capacity for advanced
programs and consists of graduate faculty members, P-12 representatives, University administrators, support
staff, a liaison from the undergraduate faculty, and department chairs of academic areas offering
certification.
The unit chair presides over both of these two governing bodies. Appeals from candidates who have not met
all requirements in their respective programs may be brought before and entertained by either the TEAC or
the GEC.
Statistical Measurement. During a faculty workshop, major assessments were evaluated using a “Fairness
Table for Reliability Instrument” to measure reliability (whether the assessment is aligned to the standards)
and validity (whether the assessment captures the most important concepts addressed for the task and
whether is it a good predictor of levels of performance) of assessment instruments.
Individual Plans. In an effort to model “differentiation” and fairly meet the diverse needs of struggling
candidates, concerns are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Should a candidate experience academic
difficulties, remedial options are suggested such as scheduling tutorial sessions at the Academic Resource
Center, enrolling in an additional course to remove the academic deficiency, attending PRAXIS study
seminars, or meeting with a faculty member for ACT assistance. Should a problem persist, the candidate
works with the concerned faculty member or advisor to complete an Individual Action Plan. Action Plan
information and date are input into EDUCAN and are subsequently followed with regular reports to advisors
and to the Department Chair in order to determine candidate progress through the plan. When candidates
complete the plan, this is noted in EDUCAN.
Public School Partners. Every semester, public school faculty attend the undergraduate Unit’s significant
program review to evaluate the student teachers’ standards-based units. Collectively, the group reviews the
benchmarks for each Kentucky Teacher and University Standard and, for the purpose of ensuring fairness
and consistency in the assessment process, practices scoring sample unit artifacts. Following the practice
session teachers then, individually or in pairs, score the standards-based units. Independently, university
coordinators then blind score the units. Scores from both public school teachers and university coordinators
are compared to ensure inter-rater reliability. Calculations are made using The Simplified Inter-rater
Reliability Co-efficient Formula. This formula calculates fairness by dividing the number of agree by the
number of agree + disagree and multiplying by 100. A modified KTIP IPR, using the 3 point scale, is used
as the scoring instrument. Prior to beginning the actual External Evaluation process, university coordinators
use this forum to discuss critical program issues and ask that P-12 faculty offer areas for program
improvement. Examples of program suggestions include but are not limited to providing additional
experiences working with exceptional students, practicing penmanship, stressing the importance of
collaboration, and emphasizing behavior management issues. The university coordinators use public school
teacher’s informal feedback as well as External Evaluation data to make student teaching and other program
changes.
Professional Judgement Model. The advanced programs ensure reliability through the independent scoring
of Exit Portfolios (2007-09), Capstone Projects, Thesis, or comprehensive exams. Consensus through a
professional judgment model determines if candidates pass, pass pending revisions, or fail to meet the
established standards. A revision and resubmission opportunity is offered to all candidates to further ensure
fairness. Rubrics or the location of rubrics are published in the Graduate Education Handbook.
Page 27
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Inter-rater Reliability. Comprehensive examinations for advanced candidates are independently scored by
two graduate faculty members. To ensure fairness, accuracy and reliability in the scoring process, faculty
meet to conduct an inter-rater reliability study using the Simplified Inter-rater Reliability Co-efficient
formula. This formula calculates fairness by dividing the number of agree by the number of agree + disagree
and multiplying by 100.
d. System for Handling Candidates Who Have Not Met Unit Expectations
Individual Plans: In an effort to model “differentiation” and fairly meet the diverse needs of struggling candidates, concerns are dealt with on an individual student basis. Should a candidate experience academic difficulties, remedial options are suggested and may include scheduling tutorial sessions at the Academic Resource Center, enrolling in an additional course to remove the academic deficiency, attending PRAXIS study seminars, or meeting with a faculty member for ACT assistance. Should a problem persist, the candidate works with the concerned faculty member or advisor to complete an Individual Action Plan. Action Plan information and data are input into the Educational Assessment Network (EDUCAN) database designed to meet the continuous assessment needs of the unit and are subsequently followed with regular reports to advisors and to the Department Chair in order to determine candidate progress through the plan. When candidates complete the plan, this is noted in EDUCAN.
e. Plan for Evaluating Unit Operations
The Unit and its members regularly and systematically use data to evaluate the efficacy of its courses,
programs, and clinical experiences. Data is triangulated using aggregate scores for key assessments,
following a timetable for collecting, processing, reporting, and analyzing results as shown below on
Table 4.6e.1.
Table 4.6e.1. Assessment Calendar with Reporting Responsibilities for Key Assessment Data
Sets – All data sets are to be submitted to Assessment Coordinator as indicated. Data Sets Submission Date Report Generated
Initial Certification Undergraduate Programs
Spring Semester
√
Fall
Semester √
> E-portfolio scores from all reviewers for
Pillars I, II, III (all KY Standards and UC
Dispositions)
____ April Last
Week
____Nov.
Last Week
E-Portfolio Standards
> Field Experience Lesson Evaluations from
P-12 supervisors (Effective Teaching and
Capstone Courses)
____ April Last
Week
____Nov.
Last Week
P-12 Supervisors Field
Experience Evaluations
> External Evaluation Rubrics from P-12
and University faculty
____ April Last
Week
____Nov.
Last Week
External Evaluation
Standards-Based Unit
Assessment
> Student Teacher’s Supervising Teacher’s
Summative
____ May First
Week
____Dec.
First Week
P-12 Supervising
Teacher Summative
Assessment (Clinical)
> University Supervisors’ KTIP IPRs ____ May First
Week
____Dec.
First Week
University Supervisor’s
KTIP IPR Scores
(Clinical)
> GPAs for all candidates (Overall,
Professional Education,
Major/Emphasis/Specialty)
____ May First
Week
____Dec.
First Week
Candidate GPAs
> PRAXIS Scores for calendar year ____ May First
Week
PRAXIS Scores-
Summary
> Graduating Senior Survey Results for
calendar year
____ May First
Week
University Graduating
Senior Survey
Page 28
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
>EPSB New Teacher Survey for calendar
year
____ May First
Week
EPSB New Teacher
Survey
Initial Certification Graduate and Option 6 Certification Programs
Data Sets Submission Date
√
Submission
Date √
Report Generated
Demographic data on Supervising Teachers,
External Evaluators, External Observers,
Course Instructors, and District-Based
Mentors
February Last
Week
September Last
Week
Personnel Evaluation
Yearly Report
> Field Experience Diversity Hours ____ April Last
Week
____Nov. Last
Week
Yearly Exit Report
> KTIP-IPRs from P-12 and University
faculty
____ April Last
Week
____Nov. Last
Week
Yearly Exit Report
Formative and Summative Evaluation by P-
12 Faculty
____ April Last
Week
____Nov. Last
Week
Yearly Exit Report
Formative and Summative Evaluation of
Mentee’s by P-12 Faculty
____ April Last
Week
____April Last
Week
Yearly Exit Report
Supervising Teacher Evaluation by the
Student Teacher
____ April Last
Week
____Nov. Last
Week
Yearly Exit Report
Supervising Teacher Checklist ____ April Last
Week
____Nov. Last
Week
Yearly Exit Report
> University Supervisors’/Mentors’ KTIP
IPRs with Dispositions
____Completed at
Each Visit
____Completed
at Each Visit
Yearly Exit Report
> Capstone Results (Standards-based) ____ May First
Week
____Dec. First
Week
Yearly Exit Report
> PRAXIS Scores for calendar year ____ May First
Week
Yearly Exit Report
>Graduate Survey ____ May First
Week
Follow up Studies
Yearly Report
Mentee’s Evaluation of District Mentor ____May First
Week
P-12 Mentee’s
Evaluation
Of District Mentor Data
Mentor Evaluation and Self Reflection ____May First
Week
P-12 Mentor Self
Evaluation Data
Graduate Survey Completed by
District/School Mentor and Building
Principal (1 Survey Each)
____May First
Week
Follow up Studies
Yearly Report
>EPSB New Teacher Survey for calendar
year
____ May First
Week
Follow up Studies
Yearly Report
Advanced Program
Data Sets Submission Date Report
Generated
Spring √ Summer √ Fall √
>GRE/Millers Analogy Scores ___ 2
Weeks after
term begins
___2 Weeks after
term begins
___2
Weeks after
term begins
GRE/Millers
Summary
> Entrance Level Writing Assignment ___ 2
Weeks after
term begins
___2 Weeks after
term begins
___2
Weeks after
term begins
Entrance
Writing
Summary
>Letters of Recommendation Disposition
Ratings
___ 2
Weeks after
term begins
___2 Weeks after
term begins
___2
Weeks after
term begins
Disposition
> GPAs for all candidates ___ 2
Weeks after
term ends
___ 2 Weeks
after term ends
___ 2
Weeks after
term ends
Candidate
GPAs
Page 29
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
> Grades for Targeted Courses ___ 2
Weeks after
term ends
___ 2 Weeks
after term ends
___ 2
Weeks after
term ends
Targeted
Course
Grades
> Demographic data on University
Supervising Instructors, Course Instructors,
Site Supervisors/District-Based Mentors,
External Evaluators, and External Observers
___ 2
Weeks after
term begins
___2 Weeks after
term begins
___2
Weeks after
term begins
Personnel
Evaluation
Yearly
Report
> Field Experience Hours for Targeted
Courses
___ 2
Weeks after
term begins
___2 Weeks after
term begins
___2
Weeks after
term begins
Field
Experience
Hours
Summary
> E-portfolio scores for School Counselor
Program (all School Counselor Standards)
___ 2
Weeks after
term begins
___2 Weeks after
term begins
___2
Weeks after
term begins
E-Portfolio
Standards
Summary
> Counselor Practicum/Internship Summative
Evaluation by Site Supervisor and University
Supervisor
___ 2
Weeks after
term begins
___2
Weeks after
term begins
Counselor
Supervisors
Summative
Evaluation
> Practicum/Internship
> Guidance and Counseling PRAXIS scores
for calendar year
___ May
First Week
PRAXIS
Scores
Summary
>Graduate Survey ____ May
First Week
University
Graduate
Survey
>Graduate Survey ____ May
First Week
Unit
Graduate
Survey
All Programs
Data Sets Submission Date Report Generated
Institutional Alumni Survey
Employer Survey –every 2 years
The Continuous Assessment System provides a collection of data that resulted in the following
programmatic improvement and changes. In addition, at the conclusion of each academic semester, the
University registrar runs a grade report for all candidates completing all graduate courses. The registrar
submits the report to the Unit’s chair who then reviews the report to identify any candidate who has
earned a “C” or lower in a graduate course. The chair sends a letter apprising candidates that they may be
in jeopardy of not meeting their program requirements. A copy of each letter is placed in the candidate’s
file. The Unit has deployed a number of evaluations and assessment measures that enable the efficient
management of its programs with the intent to improve these programs whenever possible. These measures
include faculty/course evaluations, end-of program interviews and surveys, the Kentucky New Teacher
Survey, oral presentations or capstone projects, KTIP/IPR information, Supervising Teacher Evaluations, as
well as aggregations of some key assessments at program pillars or transition points.
f. Candidate Performance on Assessments Conducted for Admission into Program
Data on previous degrees, grade point averages, and test scores are collected upon candidate admission into
the program and are accessible through the university’s student information system, EDUCAN. If
candidates meet the requirements, they receive full admission as approved program candidates. A summary
of admitted candidate performance on the entry grade point average and entrance exam for Fall term 2011 is
provided in Table 4.6f.1.
Page 30
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
g. Summary of a Sample of Candidate Performance at Exit from Programs
The Education Department’s electronic assessment system (EDUCAN) has been in process since Fall 2009.
Faculty members have access to overall performance data by assessment and candidate performance
assessment data through this system. Based on the data, faculty members are able to identify areas of
improvement for curriculum. Table 4.6g.1 provides an example of data aggregated by program candidates
in the initial programs.
Table 4.6g.1, 2009-2010 PRAXIS II Scores for All Initial Program Completers (F09-Sp10) Program Cut
Score
Under-
graduate
MAT** Option 6
Elementary ( P-5) Elementary Elementary Ed. 10014 Elementary Education 148 167
(19,3)* 164.3 (22, 4)
174.6 (5,1)
Middle School (5-9) Middle School English 10049 Middle School English 157 189 (4) 182 (1)
Social Studies 20089 Middle School Social Studies 149 162 (4) 154 (1) Mathematics 20069 Middle School Mathematics 148 156 (5) 150 (1) 161.5 (2)
Science 10439 Middle School Science 139 156 (3) 147.3 (3)
High School (8-12) Secondary Social Studies 10081 Social Studies Content Knowledge 151 167.5 (6) 160.5
(2) 168.5 (2)
20083 Social Studies Interpret Materials 159 173.1 (6) 159 (2) 166.5 (1)
Biological Science
20235 Biology Content Knowledge 146 161 (1) Chemistry 20245 Chemistry Content Knowledge 147 126 (1) 147 (1)
Physics 10265 Physics Content Knowledge 133 English 10041 English Content Knowledge 160 178.5 (2) 182
(3,1) 178.3 (3)
20042 English Essay 155 157.5 (2) 163.3 (3)
170 (3)
Mathematics 10061 Mathematics Content Knowledge 125 137 (1) 161 (1) 141.6 (3)
20063 Mathematics Proofs, Models, Problems Part I
141 175 (2) 183 (1) 162.2 (4)
Speech/Media Comm. 10220 Speech/Media Communications 161
All Grades P-12
Learning and Behavior Disorders
(P-12)
20353 Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge
157 172.7 (8) 180.8 (5)
171 (15)
10542 Education of Exceptional Students: Mild to Moderate Disabilities
172 183.2 (8) 181.8 (5)
182.9 (14)
Physical Education
(P-12)
10091 Phys. Ed.Content Knowledge 147 152.3 (3)
30092 Phys. Ed. Analysis/Design 151 157 (3)
Integrated Music (P- 12); Instrumental
Music (P-12); and
Vocal Music (P-12)
30111 Music Concepts and Processes 145 160 (4) 155 (1)
10113 Music Content Knowledge 154 158 (4) 164 (1)
Art (P-12) 10133 Art Content Knowledge 158 181 (1) 170 (3)
20131 Art Making 154 161 (1) 170 (3)
French (P-12) 20173 French Content Knowledge 159 Spanish (P-12) 10191 Spanish Content Knowledge 160
Total number
of test takers
79 58 66
Certificates
of Excellence
4% 8.6% 1.5% *In parentheses are noted first, total number of completers, and second, number of Certificates of Excellence, if any) **MAT=MAT traditional Candidates; Option 6=MAT Alternative Certification, Option 6 Candidates
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Appendix A: Assessment Pillars & Standards-Based Outcomes Tables
Table 4.6b.1. Assessment Pillars and Standards-Based Outcomes: Initial Undergraduate Program Candidates
Programs Pillar I
Admission to Teacher Education
Pillar II
Admission to Student Teaching
Pillar III
Program Completion
After Program
Completion
Elementary,
P-5
Middle
School, 5-9
Secondary, 8-
12
P-12
Requirements →Graduating
Senior Survey
→Employer
Survey
→EPSB New
Teacher
Survey
→G.P.A- 2.5 overall
→C or better in all degree
coursework
→ PPST
→EDUC 235 – C or better
→SPED 233 – C or better
→EDUC/ELEM/ELMS/SPED 237 –
C or better)
→Application to Teacher Education
completed
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
Signed
→TB skin test, Criminal background
check
→G.P.A.- 2.5 overall
→C or better in all degree
coursework
→Planned Program on file
→Completion of all field
experiences and degree
coursework except student
teaching
→Application to Student Teaching
completed
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
Signed
→G.P.A.- 2.5 overall
→C or better in all degree
coursework
→Completion of all degree
coursework
→TC-1 Completed
→Graduation Application completed
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
Signed
Key Assessments
→Three Favorable
Recommendations –assessing
dispositions
→Field experience standards-based
evaluations from P-12 faculty
→Standards-based Entry Eportfolio
Required mean score 2.0 (all KY
and UC standards and all
Knowledge Strands from
Conceptual Framework assessed)
See Holistic Rubrics for Pillar I
→Disposition assessments: course
embedded rubrics, university and
P-12 faculty (UC Standards 11,
12)
→Field experience standards-based
evaluations from P-12 faculty
→PRAXIS II: Principles of Learning
and Teaching completed- verify
registration or scores
→PRAXIS II: Content Knowledge
completed (appropriate to area of
certification)
→Standards-based ePortfolio Entries
Required mean score 2.5 (all KY
and UC standards and all
Knowledge Strands from
Conceptual Framework assessed)
→Disposition assessments:
candidate self-assessments,
university and P-12 supervisors
(UC Standards 11, 12)
→Clinical experience
Standards-based evaluations from P-
12 faculty
→Exit Standards-based
ePortfolio/TPAs Entries Required
mean score 2.75 (all KY and UC
standards and all Knowledge Strands
from Conceptual Framework
assessed)
→Standards-based External
Evaluation (KY standards 1-8,10-12
and all Knowledge Strands from
Conceptual Framework assessed)
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Programs Pillar I
Admission to Teacher Education
Pillar II
Admission to Student Teaching
Pillar III
Program Completion
After Program
Completion
Assessment of Knowledge Strands
Conceptual
Philosophy of Education
Strategic
Use concepts to develop instructional strategies
Communicative
Responses to Eportfolio oral interview
questions
Evaluative
Create initial Professional Growth Plan (self-
evaluation)
Conceptual
Apply concepts related to differentiated
instruction to unit development (in sample
lesson plan)
Strategic
Use concepts to develop instructional and
assessment strategies (e.g. pre/post, open
response)
Communicative
Articulate rationale for instructional decisions
Evaluative
Complete TPA Task C
Standards-based unit evaluation
Conceptual
Revise, refine Philosophy of Education
Strategic
Reflect on how strategies and differentiation
impact diverse learners
Communicative
Explain relationship between artifacts and
KY/UC Standards’ indicators
Evaluative
Engage in self-evaluation based on assessment
data and feedback
Table 4.6b.2. Assessment Pillars and Standards-Based Outcomes: Initial Graduate
Programs Pillar IV
Admission
Pillar V
Mid-Point
Pillar VI
Program Completion
After Program
Completion
Elementary,
P-5
Middle
School, 5-9
Secondary, 8-
12
P-12
Business &
Marketing 5-
12
LBD
Requirements →New Teacher
Survey
→Graduate
Satisfaction
Survey
→Employer
Survey
→UC Graduation
Survey
→G.P.A. of 2.5 or higher
→Bachelor’s degree from accredited
institution of higher education
(KTS 1)
→Three Letters of Recommendation
– including favorable dispositions
→Completed Graduate Application
→Submission of TB skin test,
medical exam, and Criminal
background check
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
Signed
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Midpoint assessment with advisor
when candidate accumulates 12 –
18 hours credit: Portfolio
discussion
→Completed Planned Program on
file
→C or better in all degree
coursework
→Application to Student
Teaching/Practicum completed
→Completion of field experience
hours
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Fifteen (15) hours of 600 level
courses completed
→A minimum of twenty-one (21)
hours completed at University of
the Cumberlands
→Completion of all degree or
certification coursework
→Six (6) year time limit not
exceeded
→Completed TC-1 or TC-TP
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
Signed
→Two favorable disposition
assessments
→Completed application for
graduation
Key Assessments
→Assessment of entry level writing →Two favorable disposition →Summative Evaluation
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Programs Pillar IV
Admission
Pillar V
Mid-Point
Pillar VI
Program Completion
After Program
Completion
assignment
(all CF Strands)
→PRAXIS II: Content Knowledge
(KTS 1) – appropriate to area of
certification (with 24 – 30 hours
within area) OR
→GRE (675) (KTS 1)OR Miller
Analogies Test (400) (KTS 1)
assessments
→Standards-based assessments
embedded in course work (course
grades)
EDOL 537, 538 or 539
EDOL 630, EDOL 631
→Standards-based assessments
embedded in course work (course
grades for LBD)
SPOL 530, 632, 635
EDOL 630
→PRAXIS II: Principles of Learning
and Teaching scores (KTS
1,2,3,4,5)– if applicable
→PRAXIS II: Content Knowledge
(KTS 1)– appropriate to area of
certification - passing scores- if
applicable.
→Summative evaluation (Option 6)
→KTIP-IPR (Option 6)
→KTIP-IPR
→Capstone Project (KTS – all, UC –
all, CF strands – All – mean score
2.75 or above)
Assessment of Knowledge Strands
Conceptual
PRAXIS, GRE or Millers scores
Communicative
Program entrance writing assignment
Conceptual
Apply concepts related to differentiated
instruction to units and lessons; Research paper
Strategic
Use concepts to develop instructional and
assessments strategies (e.g. pre/post, open
response)
Communicative
Articulate rationale for instructional decisions;
discussion board and chat assignments
Evaluative
Research papers, article critiques, curriculum
comparisons
Conceptual
Philosophy of Education
Strategic
Capstone Rationale and Artifacts
Communicative
Capstone Rationale and Artifacts
Evaluative
Capstone Rationale and Artifacts
Disposition Self-assessment survey
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Table 4.6b.3. Assessment Pillars and Standards-Based Outcomes –Advanced Graduate
Programs Pillar IV
Admission
Pillar V
Mid-Point
Pillar VI
Program Completion
After Program
Completion
Additional
Certification(s)
beyond Initial
(through
M.A.T.
curriculum)
Elementary
P-5
Middle
School 5-9
Secondary 8-
12
Special
Education
LBD
Requirements →New Teacher
Survey
→Graduate
Satisfaction
Survey
→Employer Survey
→G.P.A. of 2.5 or higher
→Bachelor’s degree from
accredited institution of higher
education (KTS 1)
→Completed Graduate
Application
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
→Completed Planned Program
→Submission of TB skin test,
medical exam, and Criminal
background check
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Midpoint assessment with advisor
when candidate accumulates 12 –
18 hours credit: Portfolio
discussion
→C or better in all degree
coursework
→Completion of field experience
hours
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Fifteen (15) hours of 600 level
courses completed
→A minimum of twenty-one (21)
hours completed at University of
the Cumberlands
→Completion of all degree or
certification coursework
→Six (6) year time limit not
exceeded
→Completed TC-1 or TC-TP
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
Signed
→Completed graduation application
Key Assessments
→Assessment of entry Writing
Sample
→PRAXIS II: Content Knowledge
(KTS 1) – appropriate to area of
certification (with 24 – 30 hours
within area) OR
→GRE (675) (KTS 1)OR Miller
Analogies Test (400) (KTS 1)
→Favorable dispositions on three
letters of recommendation
→Two favorable disposition
assessments
→Standards-based assessments
embedded in course work-
indicated on individual course
syllabi (KTS all; UC-all, and all
CF strands)
→Completion of the following with
a GPA of 3.0.
EDOL 537, 538 or 539
EDOL 630
EDOL 631
→PRAXIS II: Principles of Learning
and Teaching scores (KTS
1,2,3,4,5)– if applicable
→PRAXIS II: Content Knowledge
(KTS 1)– appropriate to area of
certification - passing scores- if
applicable.
→Two favorable disposition
assessments
→Comprehensive Exam
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
M.A.Ed.
Elementary
P-5
Middle
School 5-9
Secondary 8-
12
Requirements →Graduate
Satisfaction
Survey
→Employer Survey
→G.P.A. of 2.5 or higher
→Valid Teaching License
→Completed Graduate
Application
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
→Completed Planned Program on
→Submission of TB skin test,
medical exam, and Criminal
background check
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Midpoint assessment with advisor
when candidate accumulates 12 –
18 hours credit: Comprehensive
Examination discussion
→C or better in all degree
coursework
→Application for Comprehensive
Exam
→Completion of field experience
hours with favorable assessments
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Fifteen (15) hours of 600 level
courses completed
→A minimum of twenty-one (21)
hours completed at University of
the Cumberlands
→Completion of all degree or
certification coursework
→Six (6) year time limit not
exceeded
→Completed TC-1 or TC-TP
→Completed graduation application
Key Assessments
→Writing Sample Assessment
→Favorable dispositions on letters
of recommendation
→Two favorable disposition
assessments
→Completion of the following with
a GPA of 3.0.
EDOL 537, 538 or 539
EDOL 630
EDOL 631
EDOL 634
→Comprehensive Examination
Passed / Thesis completed
Rank I
Elementary
P-5
Middle
School 5-9
Secondary 8-
12
LBD
Requirements →Graduate
Satisfaction
Survey
→Employer Survey
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Masters Degree from accredited
IHE
→Valid Teaching License
→Completed Graduate
Application
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
→Completed Planned Program
→Submission of TB skin test,
medical exam, and Criminal
background check
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Midpoint assessment with advisor
when candidate accumulates 12 –
18 hours credit: Comprehensive
Examination discussion
→C or better in all degree
coursework
→Application to Student
Teaching/Practicum completed – if
applicable
→Completion of field experience
hours with favorable assessments
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Fifteen (15) hours of 600 level
courses completed
→A minimum of twenty-one (21)
hours completed at University of
the Cumberlands
→Completion of all degree or
certification coursework
→Ten (10) year time limit not
exceeded
→Completed TC-1 or TC-TP
→Completed graduation application
Key Assessments
→Writing Sample Assessment
→Favorable dispositions on letters
of recommendation
→Two favorable disposition
assessments
→Completion of the following with
a GPA of 3.0.
→Comprehensive Examination
Passed
→PRAXIS II Content Exams
Scores (passing for certification)
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
EDOL 537, 538 or 539
EDOL 630
EDOL 631
EDOL 634
→Standards-based assessments
embedded in course work (course
grades for LBD)
SPOL 530
SPOL 632
SPOL 635
EDOL 630
Assessment of Knowledge Strands Note: Assessments for MAEd candidates are contingent upon their selected program, the sequence in which the courses
are completed, and are not necessarily common across all programs.
Conceptual
Evidenced by meeting state licensure exam
requirements
Completed a degree program with 2.5 or better
Strategic
Evidenced by completing a degree completion
program
Communicative
Entrance writing assignment
Conceptual
Apply concepts related to differentiated
instruction in units and lessons; Research paper
Strategic
Use concepts to develop instructional and
assessment strategies
Communicative
Articulate rationale for instructional decisions;
discussion board and chat assignments
Evaluative
Research papers, article critiques, curriculum
comparisons
Conceptual
Comprehensive Examination / Thesis
Strategic
Comprehensive Examination
Communicative
Comprehensive Examinations
Evaluative
Comprehensive Examinations, Disposition
Self-assessment survey
Table 4.6b.4. Assessment Pillars and Standards-Based Outcomes – Advanced – Other School Professionals
Programs Pillar IV
Admission
Pillar V
Mid-Point
Pillar VI
Program Completion
After Program
Completion
Other School
Professionals
M.A.Ed.
Instructional
Leadership:
Principal
Requirements →Graduate
Satisfaction
Survey
→Employer
Survey
→G.P.A. of 2.75 higher
→Valid teaching license
→Three years of teaching experience
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
→Completed Planned Program on
→Submission of TB skin test,
medical exam, and Criminal
background check
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Midpoint assessment with
advisor when candidate
accumulates 12 – 18 hours
credit: Comprehensive
Examination discussion
→Application for Practicum
completed
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Fifteen (15) hours of 600 level
courses completed
→A minimum of 21 hours completed
at University of the Cumberlands
→Completion of all degree or
certification coursework
→Six (6) year time limit not exceeded
→Completed TC-1 or TC-TP
→Completed graduation application
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Programs Pillar IV
Admission
Pillar V
Mid-Point
Pillar VI
Program Completion
After Program
Completion
Key Assessments
→Writing Sample and Assessment
→Three Letters of
Recommendation – including
favorable dispositions :
Administrator
Superintendent
Other
→Two favorable disposition
assessments
→Completion of field experience
hours with favorable assessments
→Assessment of case studies based
upon appropriate standards,
ISLLC, TSSA
→Standards-based assessments
embedded in course work, GPA
of 3.0.
ADOL 630 (ISLLC I & IV)
ADOL 632 (ISLLC II & III)
ADOL 633 Applied Research
ADOL 636 (ISLLC V&VI)
→ Completion of the following with a
GPA of 3.0.
ADOL 664 (Practicum)
→Dispositional Survey
→Mentor Evaluations in Practicum
(Standards based)
→Comprehensive Examination Passed
/ Thesis completed
→Completion of Kentucky Specialty
Test of Instructional and
Administration Practice (optional)
→Completion of School Leader
Licensure Assessment (SLLA)
(optional)
Other School
Professionals
M.A.Ed.
School
Counseling
Requirements →Graduate
Satisfaction
Survey
→Employer
Survey
→G.P.A. of 2.75 or higher
→Bachelor’s degree from an
accredited IHE
→Three Letters of
Recommendation – including
favorable dispositions
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
→Completed Planned Program
→Submission of TB skin test,
medical exam, and Criminal
background check
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Midpoint assessment with advisor
when candidate accumulates 12 –
18 hours credit on 12 Program
Objectives and Curriculum of the
School Counseling Program
→Application for Practicum with
Approved Site
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Completion of all 33 program hours
and University of the Cumberlands
→Six year time limit not exceeded
→TC-1 Completed
Key Assessments
→Writing Sample and Assessment
→GRE 675 or Miller’s Analogies Test
400
→Favorable dispositions on letters of
recommendation
→PRAXIS #421, Professional
School Counseling
→Two favorable disposition
assessments
→Field experience completed with
favorable assessments
→Passing Scores on Standards
Based Eportfolio
→COOL 637 Counseling Practicum
with favorable assessments
→COOL 638 Counseling Internship
with favorable assessments
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Programs Pillar IV
Admission
Pillar V
Mid-Point
Pillar VI
Program Completion
After Program
Completion
Other School
Professionals
M.A.Ed.
Supervisor of
Instruction
Requirements →Graduate
Satisfaction
Survey
→Employer
Survey
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Valid teaching certificate
→Master’s degree from IHE
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
→Three years of teaching experience
→Completed Planned Program
→Submission of TB skin test, medical
exam, and Criminal background
check
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Application to Administrative
Practicum completed
→Midpoint assessment with
advisor when candidate
accumulates 12 – 18 hours
credit: Comprehensive
Examination discussion
→Application for Practicum
completed
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Completion of all degree or
certification coursework
→TC-1 Completed
→Eighteen (18) hours of 600 level
courses completed
→A minimum of twenty-one (21)
hours completed at University of the
Cumberlands
→Ten (10) year limit not exceeded
Key Assessments
→Assessment of entry level writing
assignment
→Favorable dispositions on three
letters of recommendation
→Two favorable disposition
assessments
→Completion of field experience
hours with favorable
assessments
→Assessment of case studies
based upon appropriate
standards (ISLLC, TSSA)
→Completion of the following
with a 3.0 G.P.A.:
ADOL 630 (ISLLC I&IV)
ADOL 632 (ISLLC II&III)
ADOL 636 (ISLLC V)
→Dispositional Survey
→Summative Evaluation in Practicum
Final (standards based)
→Mentor Evaluations in Practicum
(Standards based)
→Comprehensive Exam passed
(standards based)
Other School
Professionals
Director of
Special
Education
Requirements →Graduate
Satisfaction
Survey
→Employer
Survey
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Valid teaching certificate
→Master’s degree from IHE
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
→Completed Planned Program
→Three years of teaching experience
(minimum 1 year in special
education or school psychology)
→KTIP successfully completed or two
years of successful out-of-state
teaching
→Submission of TB skin test, medical
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Midpoint assessment with
advisor when candidate
accumulates 12 – 18 hours
credit: Comprehensive
Examination discussion
→Application to Administrative
Practicum completed
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Completion of all degree or
certification coursework
→TC-1 Completed
→Eighteen (18) hours of 600 level
courses completed
→A minimum of twenty-one (21)
hours completed at University of
the Cumberlands
→Ten (10) year limit not exceeded
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Programs Pillar IV
Admission
Pillar V
Mid-Point
Pillar VI
Program Completion
After Program
Completion
exam, and Criminal background
check
Key Assessments
→Assessment of entry level writing
assignment
→Favorable dispositions on three
letters of recommendation
→Completion of the following
with a 3.0 G.P.A.:
ADOL 630 (ISLLC I&IV)
ADOL 632 (ISLLC II&III)
ADOL 636 (ISLLC V& VI)
→Two favorable disposition
assessments
→Completion of field experience
hours with favorable assessments
→Assessment of case studies
based upon appropriate standards
(ISLLC, TSSA, and/or CEC)
→Dispositional Survey
→Summative Evaluation in Practicum
Final (standards based)
→Mentor Evaluations in Practicum
(Standards based)
→Comprehensive Exam passed
(standards based)
Other School
Professionals
MAEd
Reading
and
Writing
Specialist
P12
Requirements →Graduate
→Satisfaction
Survey
→Employer
Survey
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Valid teaching certificate
→Bachelor’s degree from IHE
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
→Three Letters of Recommendation
→Completed Planned Program
→Submission of TB skin test, medical
exam, and Criminal background
check
Not applicable (18 hour program) →G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Fifteen (15) hours of 600 level
courses completed
→A minimum of twenty-one (21)
hours completed at University of the
Cumberlands
→Completion of all degree or
certification coursework
→Six (6) year time limit not exceeded
→TC-1 Completed
Key Assessments
→Assessment of entry level writing
assignment
→Favorable dispositions on three
letters of recommendation
Not applicable (18 hour program) →Dispositional Survey
→ Comprehensive Exam passed /
Thesis completed
→ Completion of the following with a
3.0 G.P.A.:
REOL 531, REOL 630
REOL 631, REOL 632
→Field Experience Assessments
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Programs Pillar IV
Admission
Pillar V
Mid-Point
Pillar VI
Program Completion
After Program
Completion
Other School
Professionals
Ed.S.
Superinten-
dent
Requirements →Graduate
Satisfaction
Survey
→Employer
Survey
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Valid teaching certificate
→Master’s degree from IHE
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
→Completed Planned Program
→Three years of teaching experience
→Two years in educational
administration
→Level II certification in Supervisor of
Instruction or Principalship
→KTIP successfully completed or two
years of successful out-of-state
teaching
→Submission of TB skin test, medical
exam, and Criminal background
check
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Completed Planned Program
→Application to Administrative
Practicum completed
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Completion of all degree or
certification coursework
→TC-1 Completed
→Dispositional Survey
Key Assessments
→Assessment of entry level writing
assignment
→Favorable dispositions on three
letters of recommendation
→Completion of the following
with a 3.0 G.P.A.:
ADOL 634 (ISLLC IV)
ADOL 637 (ISLLC V)
ADOL 640 (ISLLC II&III)
ADOL 641 (ISLLC I&VI)
→Two favorable disposition
assessments
→Completion of field experience
hours with favorable assessments
→Assessment of case studies
based upon appropriate standards
(ISLLC, TSSA)
→Dispositional Survey
→Summative Evaluation in Practicum
Final (standards based)
→Mentor Evaluations in Practicum
(Standards based)
→Comprehensive Exam passed
(standards based)
Other School
Professionals
Ed.S.
Supervisor
Requirements →Graduate
Satisfaction
Survey
→Employer
Survey
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Valid teaching certificate
→Master’s degree from IHE
→KY Professional Code of Ethics
→Three years of teaching experience
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Completed Planned Program on
file
→Application to Practicum
completed
→G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
→Twenty-one (21) hours of 600 level
courses completed
→A minimum of twenty-one (21)
hours completed at University of
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Programs Pillar IV
Admission
Pillar V
Mid-Point
Pillar VI
Program Completion
After Program
Completion
of
Instruction
→KTIP successfully completed or two
years of successful out-of-state
teaching
→Submission of TB skin test, medical
exam, and Criminal background
check
→Midpoint assessment with
advisor when candidate
accumulates 15-24 hours
the Cumberlands
→Five (5) year limit not exceeded
→Degree application completed
Key Assessments
→GRE 675 or Miller’s Analogies Test
400
→Assessment of entry level writing
assignment
→Favorable dispositions on three
letters of recommendation
→Assessment of School
Improvement Plan
→Assessment of Professional
Development Plan
→Completion of the following
with a 3.0 G.P.A.:
ADOL 630 (ISLLC I&IV)
ADOL 632 (ISLLC II&III)
ADOL 634 for (ISLLC IV)
ADOL 637 (ISLLC V )
ADOL 640 (ISLLC II&III)
ADOL 641 (ISLLC I&VI)
→Comprehensive Exam passed
→Dispositional Survey
→Summative Evaluation in Practicum
Finals (standards based)
→Mentor Evaluations in Practicum
(Standards based)
Assessment of Knowledge Strands: (Note: Assessments for other advanced candidates are contingent upon their selected program, the sequence in which the
courses are completed, and are not necessarily common across all programs)
Conceptual
Evidenced by meeting state licensure exam
requirements
Completed a degree program with 3.0 or better
Strategic
As evidenced by completing a degree
completion program
Communicative
Entrance writing assignment
Conceptual
Apply concepts related to best practice
(instructional or administrative)
Strategic
Use concepts to develop instructional and
assessment strategies (instructional,
programmatic or administrative)
Communicative
Articulate rationale for instructional,
programmatic decisions; discussion board and
chat assignments
Evaluative
Article critiques, curriculum, program
comparisons and evaluation
Conceptual
Apply conceptual knowledge to case study
analysis
Comprehensive Exam / Portfolio
Strategic
Comprehensive Exam / Portfolio
Communicative
Comprehensive Exam / Portfolio Evaluative
Reflect on experiences with diverse
populations
Comprehensive Exam/ Portfolio
Other School
Professionals
Requirements →Graduate
Satisfaction →G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher →G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher →G.P.A. of 3.0 or higher
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Programs Pillar IV
Admission
Pillar V
Mid-Point
Pillar VI
Program Completion
After Program
Completion
Ed.S.
School
Counselor
→Master’s degree from IHE with at
least 30 hours
→ Entrance Exam: GRE (675)/Miller
Analogies Test (400)/Guidance Counselor
PRAXIS #421
→ Assessment of Entry Level Writing
Assignment → Kentucky Professional Code of Ethics
→ Three (3) letters of recommendation
→Completion of field experience
hours
→Midpoint assessment with
advisor when candidate
accumulates 6-9 hours
→Two favorable dispositions
→All Ed.S. hours completed at
University of the Cumberlands
→Six (6) year limit not exceeded
→Degree application completed
→Successful Completion of 60 hours
coursework
→TC-1 completed ______________
Survey
→Employer
Survey
Key Assessments
→GRE 675 or Miller’s Analogies Test
400/ Guidance Counselor PRAXIS
#421 550 →Assessment of entry level writing
assignment
→Favorable dispositions on three
letters of recommendation
→Completion of coursework
with a 3.0 G.P.A.
→Dispositional Survey
→Completion of coursework with a 3.0
G.P.A.
Assessment of Knowledge Strands: (Note: Assessments for other advanced candidates are contingent upon their selected program, the sequence in which the
courses are completed, and are not necessarily common across all programs)
Conceptual
Completed a degree program with 3.0 or better
Strategic
As evidenced by completing a degree
completion program
Communicative
Entrance writing assignment
Conceptual
Apply concepts related to best practice in
counseling
Strategic
Use concepts to develop instructional and
assessment strategies (instructional,
programmatic or specific counseling needs)
Communicative
Articulate rationale for instructional,
programmatic decisions; discussion board and
chat assignments
Evaluative
Article critiques, curriculum, program
comparisons and evaluation
Conceptual
Apply conceptual knowledge to case study
analysis
Strategic
As evidenced by completing a degree
completion program
Communicative
Articulate rationale for instructional,
programmatic decisions; discussion board and
chat assignments Evaluative
Reflect on experiences with diverse
populations
Article critiques, curriculum, program
comparisons and evaluation
*For candidates completing 30 hour program
Page 43
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Appendix B: Bibliography
Abrami, P.C., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Wadem, A., Surkes, M.A., Tamim, R., and Zhang, D. (2008).
Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 78, 1102-1134.).
Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. New
York: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. 2013, 4-6.
Alexander, P.A., Jetton, T.L., Julikowich, J.M., & Woehler, C. (1994). Contrasting instructional and structural
importance: The seductive effect of teacher question. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 19-45.
Alexander, P.A., & Judy, J.E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in
academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 375-404.
Alexander, P.A., & Murphy, P.K. (1995). The research base for APA’s learner-centered psychological
principles. University of Maryland.
Alexander, P.A., Schallert, D.L., & Hare, V.C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy
talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 315-343.
Allsopp, D.H., Demarie, D., McHatton, P.A., & Doone, E. (2006). Bridging the gap between theory and practice:
Connecting courses with field experiences. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 19-35.
Alverman, D.E., Smith, L.C., & Readence, J.E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of
compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20 (4), 420-436.
Amobi, F.A. (2006). Beyond the call: Preserving reflection in the preparation of “highly qualified” teachers. Teacher
Education Quarterly 33(2), 23-35.
Anderson, R.C., Pichert, J.W., & Shirey, L.L. (1983). Effects of reader’s schema at different points in time. Journal
Educational Psychology 75(2), 271-279.
Anderson, R.C., Reynolds, R.E., Schallert, D.L., & Goetz, E.T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending
discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 367-381.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52
(1), 1-26.
Barnes, C. (2006). Preparing preservice teachers to teach in a culturally responsive way [Electronic version]. Negro
Educational Review, 57(1-2), 85-100.
Barry, N.H. (1994). Promoting reflective practice among undergraduate education majors in an elementary music
methods course. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association,
November. Nashville, TN.
Braun, T. (2008). Making a choice: The perceptions and attitudes of online graduate students. Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 16(1), 63-92.
Britzman, D.P. (1991). Practice makes practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotsky’s Analysis of Learning and Instruction In
Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V., Miller, S. (2003). Vygotsky’s Educational Theory and Practice in Cultural
Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chant, R.H., Heafner, T.L., & Bennett, K.R. (2004). Connecting personal theorizing and action research in
preservice teacher development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(3), 25-42.
Chicoine, D. (2004). Ignoring the obvious: A constructivist critique of the traditional teacher education program.
Educational Studies, 36(3), 245-263.
Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-
29. Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. S. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice.
Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15. Darling-Hammond, L. & Baratz-Snowden, J. (2007). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly
qualified teachers our children deserve. Educational Horizons, 85(2), 111-32. Retrieved October 29, 2007, from
OmniFile Full Text Mega database.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers
should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Page 44
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D.J., Gatlin, S., & Heilig, J.V. (2005). Does teacher education preparation matter?
Evidence about teacher certification, teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 13(42), 1-29.
Diaz, D., Cartnal, R. (1999). Students’ learning styles in two classes: Online distance learning and equivalent on-
campus. College Teaching, 47(4), 130-135.
Dorbin, J. (1999). Who’s teaching online? ITPE News, 2(12), 6-7. Dunkin, M. J., Precians, R. B., & Nettle, E. B. (1994). Effects of formal teacher education upon student teachers'
cognitions regarding teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 395-408.
Dewey, J. (1974). The child and the curriculum. In John Dewey on Education, edited by R.D.Archambault. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Education Professional Standards Board. (2012). Professional code of ethics for Kentucky certified school
personnel. Retrieved September 20, 2012 from http://www.kyepsb.net/legal/ethics.asp.
Elder, L. (2005). Critical thinking as the key to the learning college: A professional development model. New
Directions for Community College, 130, 39-48.
Fallah, M. H., & Ubell, R. (2000). Blind scores in a graduate test: Conventional compared with web-based outcomes.
Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/magazine/v4n2/fallah.asp
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, J. (1991). The unschooled mind. New York: Basic Books.
Garmon, M.A. (2005). Six key factors for changing preservice teachers’ attitudes/beliefs about diversity Educational Studies, 38 (3), 275-286.
Giancarlo, C.A. & Facione, P.A. (2001). A look across four years at the disposition toward critical thinking among
undergraduate students. The Journal of General Education, 50(1), 29-55.
Gibson, J.J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton-Miffin. Glasser, W. (1990). The
quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York: Harper & Row.
Greeno, J., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In Berliner, D. C., & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.)
Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan.
Gronlund, N.E., & Linn, R.L. (1990). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. New York: Macmillan. Goubeaud, K., &Yan, W. (2004). Teacher educators‟ teaching methods, assessments, and grading: A comparison of higher
education faculty‟s instructional practices. The Teacher Educator, 40 (1), 1-16. Graves, D.H. (2001). The energy to teach. Westport, CT: Heinemann.
Halpern, D.F. (2000). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a
critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, March 7, 69-74.
Harris, K., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy
construction. Exceptional Children, 57(5), 392-404.
Helm, C. (2006). Teacher dispositions as predictors of good teaching. The Clearing House, 79(3), 117-118.
Helm, C. (2007). Teacher dispositions affecting self-esteem and student performance. The Clearing House, 80
(3), 109-110.
Heritage. M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-
145.
Hink, S. S., & Brandell, M. E. (1999). Service learning: Facilitating academic learning and character
development. NASSP Bulletin, 83(609), 16-24.
Hogan, T., Rabinowitz, M., & Craven III, J.A. (2003). Representation in teaching: Inferences from research of
expert and novice teachers. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 235-247.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31(9), 28-33.
Katz, I. R., & Macklin, A. S. (2007). Information and communication technology (ICT) literacy: Integration and
assessment in higher education. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics, 5(4), 50-55.
Kauchak, D. P., & Eggen, P. D. (1998). Learning and teaching: Research-based methods. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Kearsley, G., Lynch, W., & Wizer (1995). The effectiveness and impact of computer conferencing in
graduate education. Educational Technology, 35(6), 37-42.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source learning and development. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, A.Y. and Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning
in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4 (2), 193–212.
Page 45
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Littrell, A. B., Zagumny, M. J., & Zagumny, L. L. (2005). Contextual and psychological predictors of
instructional technology use in rural classrooms. Educational Research Quarterly,29(2), 37-47. Mac Suibhne, S. (2009). "'Wrestle to be the man philosophy wished to make you': Marcus Aurelius, reflective
practitioner". Reflective Practice, 10 (4), 429–436. Maheady, L., Jabot, M., Rey, J., & Michielli-Pendl, J. (2007). An early field-based experience and its impact on pre-
service candidates’ teaching practice and their pupils’ outcomes. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(1), 24-33.
McGlinn, J.M. (2003). The impact of experimental learning on student teachers. Clearing House,76(3), 143-147.
Meadows, E. (2006). Preparing teachers to be curious, open minded, and actively reflexive: Dewey’s ideas
reconsidered. Action in Teacher Education, 28, 4-14.
Mims, C., Polly, D., Shepherd, C., & Inan, F. (2006). Examining PT3 projects designed to improve preservice
education. TechTrends, 50(3), 16-24.
Moore, R. (2006). Taking action: Assessing the impact of preservice teaching on learning. Action in Teacher
Education, 28(3), 53-60.
Moss, C.M. (1997). Systematic self-reflection: Professional development for the reflective practitioner. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Murphy, P.K. and Alexander, P.A. (2006). Understanding How Students Learn: A Guide for Instructional
Leaders. Thousand-Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional Standards for the Accreditation of
Teacher Preparation Institutions. Washington, DC: Author.
Neill, M. (2006). Preparing teachers to beat the agonies of NCLB. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for
Quick Review, 71(8), 8-12.
Nieto, S. (2003). Challenging current notions of “highly qualitied teachers’ through work in a teachers’ inquiry group.
Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5), 386-398.
Palmer, P.J. (2004). A Hidden Wholeness: The journey toward an undivided life. San-Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Palmer, B.C., Rowell, C.G., & Brooks, M.A. (2004). Reflection and cognitive strategy instruction: Modeling active
learning for pre-service teachers. Reading Horizons, 45(3), 195-216.
Phelps, P. (2006). The assessment of teacher dispositions. The Clearing House, 79 (6), 237-239.
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher,
24(7), 5-12.
Piaget, J. (1953). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International University Press.
Plake, B.S. (1993). Teacher Assessment Literacy: Teachers’ competencies in the educational assessment of students.
Midwestern Educational Researcher, 6(1), 21-27. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on
teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M.W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does
one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 1-16.
Reeves, D. (Ed.) (2007). Ahead of the Curve: The Power of Assessment to Tranform Teaching and Learning.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College
Record, 104(4), 842-866.
Romano, M.E. (2005). Preservice teachers’ reflections on observed “bumpy moments” in teaching: Implications for
teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 40(4). 257-277. Sarasin, L.C. (1998). Learning style perspectives: Impact in the classroom. Madison, WI: Atwood.
Schmoker, M., (2006). Results now. How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and
learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Spalding, E., & Wilson, A. (2002). Demystifying reflection: A study of pedagogical strategies that encourage
reflective journal writing. Teacher College Record, 104(7), 1393-1421.
Stiggins, R. (2001). Student Involved Classroom Assessment. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-
765.
Talbert-Johnson, C. (2006). Preparing highly qualified teacher candidates for urban schools: The importance of
dispositions. Education and Urban Society, 39(1), 147-160.
Taylor, R. L., & Wasicsko, M. M. (2000, November). The dispositions to teach. Paper presented at the annual
Southern Regional Association of Teacher Educators Conference, Lexington, KY.
Page 46
Conceptual Framework for University of the Cumberlands
Reflective Constructors of Quality Learning Experiences through Critical Thinking
Thornton, H. (2006). Dispositions in action: Do dispositions make a difference in practice?" Teacher Education
Quarterly, 33(2), 53-68.
Thurmond, V. (2003, March). Examination of interaction variables as predictors of students‟ satisfaction and willingness to
enroll in future we-based courses while controlling for student characteristics. Proceedings of Society for
Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference.
Uline, C., Wilson, J.D., & Cordry, S. (2004). Reflective journals: A valuable tool for teacher preparation.
Education, 124(3), 456-460.
University of the Cumberlands. (2006). Quality enhancement plan. Williamsburg, KY: University of the
Cumberlands.
University of the Cumberlands. (2007). University of the Cumberlands catalogue. Williamsburg, KY: University of
the Cumberlands.
Valentin, S. (2006). Addressing diversity in teacher education programs. Education, 127(2), 196-202.
Van Huizen, P., Van Oers, B., & Wubbles, T. (2005). A Vygotskian perspective on teacher education. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 37(3), 267-290.
Vannatta, R., & Beyerback, B. (2000). Facilitating a constructivist vision of technology integration among education
faculty and preservice teachers. Journal for Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 132-148.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1997). Educational psychology. (R. Silverman, Trans.). Boca Raton, FL: Saint Lucie Press. (Original
work published in 1926.)
Weiner, M. (2002). Learner–centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San-Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weiner, C. (2003). Key ingredients to online learning: Adolescent students study in cyberspace – the nature of the study. International Journal on E-Learning. 2(3), 44-50. Westwood, P. (2008). What Teachers Need to Know about Teaching Methods. Victoria, Australia: ACER
Press.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student
performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.