An Overview Of Iowa State University

Iowa State University University Teacher Education Program

Institutional Report

Practitioner Preparation Program October 2005

The C³ Teacher

Dr. Veronica Stalker, Associate Director University Teacher Education Program Office of Teacher Education E105 Lagomarcino Ames, Iowa 50011-3188 2 Table of Contents:

Chapter 1 ...... 7 Chapter 2 ...... 16 Conceptual Framework …………………………………………………….…...17 Supporting Bibliography………………………………………………………...19 Chapter 3 ...... 20 79.10(1) …………………………………………………………………………20 79.10(2) …………………………………………………………………………28 79.10(3) …………………………………………………………………………29 79.10(4) …………………………………………………………………………35 79.10(5) …………………………………………………………………………36 79.10(6) …………………………………………………………………………36 79.10(7) …………………………………………………………………………40 Chapter 4 ...... 46 79.11(1) …………………………………………………………………………46 79.11(2) …………………………………………………………………………46 79.11(3) …………………………………………………………………………55 79.11(4) …………………………………………………………………………66 Chapter 5 ...... 71 79.12(1) …………………………………………………………………………75 79.12(2) …………………………………………………………………………79 79.12(3) …………………………………………………………………………79 79.12(4) …………………………………………………………………………80 79.12(5) …………………………………………………………………………83 79.12(6) …………………………………………………………………………83 79.12(7) …………………………………………………………………………84 79.12(8) …………………………………………………………………………85 Chapter 6 ...... 88 79.13(1) …………………………………………………………………………88 79.13(2) …………………………………………………………………………91 79.13(3) …………………………………………………………………………93 79.13(4) …………………………………………………………………………94 79.13(5) …………………………………………………………………………94 79.13(6) …………………………………………………………………………96 79.13(7) …………………………………………………………………………97 79.13(8) …………………………………………………………………………98 79.13(9) ………………………………………………………………………..100 79.13(10) ………………………………………………………………………101 Chapter 7 ...... 102 79.14(1)a ………………………………………………………………………102 79.14(1)b ………………………………………………………………………102 79.14(1)c ………………………………………………………………………102 79.14(1)d ………………………………………………………………………104 79.14(1)e ………………………………………………………………………105 79.14(1)f ……………………………………………………………………….122

3 79.14(1)g ………………………………………………………………………122 79.14(1)h ………………………………………………………………………123 79.14(1)i ………………………………………………………….……………124 79.14(1)j ………………………………………………………….……………130 79.14(1)k ………………………………………………………………………132 Chapter 8 ...... 134 79.14(2)a ………………………………………………………………….……134 79.14(2)b ………………………………………………………………….……136 79.14(2)c ………………………………………………………………….……137 79.14(2)d ………………………………………………………………….……137 79.14(2)e ………………………………………………………………….……138 79.14(2)f …………………………………………………………….…….…....138 79.14(2)g(1) ……………………………………………………………………141 79.14(2)g(2) ……………………………………………………………………147 79.14(2)g(3)1 ……………………………………………………………..……149 79.14(2)g(3)2 …………………………………………………………..………149 79.14(2)g(3)3 …………………………………………………………..………150 79.14(2)g(3)4 …………………………………………………………..………154 79.14(2)g(3)5 …………………………………………………………..………155 79.14(2)g(3)6 …………………………………………………………..………155 79.14(2)g(4)1 …………………………………………………………..………159 79.14(2)g(4)2 …………………………………………………………..………159 79.14(2)g(5) ……………………………………………………………………160 79.14(2)g(6) ……………………………………………………………………161 79.14(2)g(7) ……………………………………………………………………163 79.14(2)h ………………………………………………………………….....…164 References ……………………………………………………………………...167 Chapter 9 ...... 169 Acronyms ...... 170 List of Exhibits ………………………………………………………………………………..171

4 Tables and Figures:

Chapter 1

Figure 1-1: Institutional Organizational Chart …………………………………………………..11

Table 1-1: Enrollment in Teacher Education and Iowa State University ……………………….12

Table 1-2: Number of Candidates Applying for Licensure by Endorsement Area (Fall 1999- Spring 2005) ……………………………………………………………………………..13

Table 1-3: Number of Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty, 2000-2004…………………………...15

Chapter 3

Figure 3-1: Organization Chart-University Teacher Education and Educator Licensure Program …………………………………………………………….22

Table 3-1: Teacher Education Faculty as of Fall 2005 …………………………………………..25

Table 3-2: University Teacher Education Program Committee Action Summary 2004-2005 …………………………………………………………………….27

Table 3-3: Amount of Support for Presenting at Conferences Provided by Department and College for Faculty in Teacher Education Departments ………………………………...31

Table 3-4: Department of Curriculum and Instruction Hiring and Evaluation of Lecturer and Clinical Faculty Governance Document 8.1 …………………………………………….38

Table 3-5: Mean Course Evaluations for Lecturers and All Instructors in CI Undergraduate Courses, 2002-2005 ……………………………………………………………………..39

Table 3-6: Office of Teacher Education Proposed Budget, 2005-2006 ………………………...40

Table 3-7: Selected Department and College Characteristics related to Support, Fall 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003 Data …………………………………………………………………..43

Figure 3-2: Student Credit Hours/Full Time Equivalent Faculty in Teacher Education Departments and Colleges ……………………………………………………………....44

Figure 3-3: Department and College Funding/ Student Credit Hour …………………………...44

Figure 3-4: Departmental Funding Per Full Time Equivalent Faculty Member …………..……45

Figure 3-5: Number of Majors Per Full Time Equivalent Faculty Member ………………….…45

5 Chapter 4

Table 4-1: Number and Percentage of Iowa Students by Sex and Racial/Ethnic Background, 1999-2004 ………………………………………………………………………………49

Table 4-2: 1999-2004 Number and Percent of Students by Sex, Racial/Ethnic Background and Residency for Students in Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Agricultural Education and Family and Consumer Science Education …………………50

Table 4-3: Demographic Profile of George Washington Carver Teacher Education Students …………………………………………………………….54

Table 4-4: Gender and Ethnic/Racial Background of Tenure Track Teacher Education Hires, 1999-2005 …………………………………………………...58

Table 4-5: Number of Iowa State Students Participating in International Student Teaching Since Academic Year 2000-2005 ………………………………………………………..……61

Table 4-6: Dean’s Leadership Seminar, Participation by Academic Year ……………….…….62

Table 4-7: Visiting Scholars in Teacher Education Departments, Academic Years 2002-2006 …………………………………………………………….63

Chapter 5

Table 5-1: Iowa State University, University Teacher Education Faculty, Collaborative Teaching Experience Policy ………………………………………………………………………72

Table 5-2: Lecturers/Clinicians in Teacher Education, Fall 2002-Spring 2005 ……..…………74

Table 5-3: Iowa State University Teacher Education Faculty: Major and Supportive Expressions ……………………………………………………..77

Table 5-4: Iowa State University Teacher Education Faculty: Research Proposals and Awards ………………………………………………..………78

Table 5-5: Compliance with 40 Hour Requirement …………………………………….………86

Chapter 6

Table 6-1: Required Number of Hours of Pre-Admission Field Experience for Each Program Option ……………………………………………………….………89

Table 6-2: Required Post-Admission Field Experience Prior to Student Teaching ……………90

6 Table 6-3: Summary of Student Teaching Placements for the Various Teaching Major Options ………………………………………………….………….…92

Table 6-4: Assessment Courses Listed on Filed Exhibit Sheets ………………………….….…95

Chapter 7

Table 7-1: Consistency of ISU UTEP with National Standards ………………………………103

Table 7-2: Mapping of the ISU (INTASC) Standards to the Iowa Teaching Quality Standards ………………………………………….………….103

Table 7-3: Coverage of State Professional Core in ISU TE Curriculum ……………...………104

Table 7-4: Master’s Core in Education (Curriculum and Instruction) …………………...……133

Chapter 8

Table 8-1: Planned Schedule of Follow-Up Assessments of Graduates ………………………139

Table 8-2: Examples of DPI Assignments ………………………………………………….…151

Figure 8-1: Checkpoints for Teacher Education Program ………………………………….…153

Table 8-3: Schedule for Bringing Performance Standards and Designated Performance Indicators On-Line …………………………………………………..…155

7 Chapter 1: An Overview of Iowa State University

Iowa State University of Science and Technology (ISU) is one of the nation’s premier land-grant universities. It has embraced the four founding land-grant principles throughout its

137-year history:

 Access regardless of race, creed, gender or economic background;

 Integration of practical and liberal education programs;

 Respect for applied and basic research, and;

 Service to the state’s citizens.

ISU is one of only 34 public universities to be invited to join the American Association of

Research Universities and is a Carnegie Doctoral/Research-Extensive University. The

University’s mission directly influences its teacher education program and for that reason the mission is quoted in its entirety from (Exhibit 1-1).1 The 2005-2010 mission statement is presented below.2 The statement emphasizes quality undergraduate and graduate education, knowledge-creation and knowledge-sharing, and diversity in the university community.

Mission Statement (2005-2010 Strategic Plan)

Create, share, and apply knowledge to make Iowa and the world a better place.  Create knowledge through excellent scholarship in teaching, research, and creative endeavors.  Share knowledge through outstanding, learning-centered undergraduate, graduate, professional, and outreach programs.  Apply knowledge to improve the quality of life for current and future generations.

1 Exhibit 1-1: Iowa State University Catalog: Undergraduate and Graduate Courses and Programs 2005-2007 is located in the Exhibit Room and online at: http://www.iastate.edu/~catalog/

2 Exhibit 1-2: 2005-2010 Strategic Plan is located online at: http://www.iastate.edu/~strategicplan/2010/process/drafts/111704.shtml

8 In carrying out its mission, Iowa State will increase and support diversity in the university community. Diversity enlivens the exchange of ideas, broadens scholarship, and prepares students for lifelong, productive participation in society (Exhibit 1-2).

The university’s mission statement sets the parameters within which the University

Teacher Education Program (UTEP) operates. Faculty and staff in the Program produce research and exemplary practices for both licensure candidates and practitioners; they share their work across the state as well as with broader audiences; they apply their research by working with educators in the field and by modifying their own instructional practices; and they address areas of state need that also fit the university’s mission. In addition, as a research-extensive institution, faculty devote a significant portion of their time to discovery and scholarship. Scholarship includes mentoring graduate students, generating discovery and seeking external funding to deepen their understanding of education and learning. As befits a land-grant institution, much of that scholarship involves collaborative partnerships and involvement with birth to grade 12 (B-

12) schools. The combination of scholarship, community engagement, and teaching produces synergies that enhance both the learning experiences of our students and the quality of the scholarship of our faculty.

Iowa State was originally chartered as the Iowa Agricultural College (IAC) and Model

Farm. Iowa was the first state to accept the terms of the 1862 Morrill Act, and IAC consequently became the nation’s first land-grant college. When the IAC opened in 1868 it offered courses representing the core disciplines and professional pursuits available to students: mechanical arts, agriculture, arts and science, and normal studies (teacher education). President Welch, the first president, established the normal studies program himself and actually taught pedagogy courses for 18 years. Although the other three areas eventually became departments, normal studies did not. Nonetheless, the normal studies program that Welch created may well have been the first

9 four-year teacher preparation program in the country. The program enjoyed great popularity, as evidenced by an 1884 survey indicating that nearly 90% of the IAC students supported themselves by teaching in nearby schools while they completed their degrees.

President Beardshear followed Welch’s lead and also taught normal studies. He wanted to expand the program. However, advocates for the newly established Iowa State Normal School in Cedar Falls argued that primary teacher preparation responsibility should be their domain.

Despite objections, Beardshear succeeded in expanding enrollment and faculty positions in the normal school program (Exhibit 1-3)3.

In 1898 IAC was renamed the Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts

(ISC). During the next 25 years, several departments established their own teacher preparation programs: 1911, Agricultural Ed; 1919, Vocational Education; 1924, Home Economics

Vocational Education; and in the mid 1920’s, men’s and women’s Physical Education. There were earlier attempts to consolidate all teacher education programs, but opponents felt such a move would infringe upon the mission of the Iowa State Normal College. Teacher preparation at

ISC thus historically evolved as a decentralized model composed of faculty from four colleges led by a Director of Teacher Education (Exhibit 1-3). (A detailed organization chart for the newly reorganized University Teacher Education and Educator Licensure Program is included in

Chapter 3).

In addition, as the conceptual framework illustrates in Chapter 2, the university now offers a single and aligned program for its licensure area candidates that meets the principles of

3 Exhibit 1.3: Smith, L. Glenn (Leonard Glenn). Teacher education at Iowa State University, 1868-1982. Ames: Research Institute for Studies in Education, Iowa State University, 1982 located in the Exhibit Room.

10 the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) as well as the State of Iowa Quality

Teaching Standards and Model Criteria.

ISC became Iowa State University of Science and Technology (ISU) in 1959. By this time the substantial number of teacher education candidates dictated a more formal organization.

Virgil Lagomarcino led efforts to establish a College of Education and in 1968 became the newly created college’s first dean. Several departments, elementary education, secondary education, physical education and industrial education, were housed in the new college. Other programs remained in their respective colleges. Some secondary education faculty members had split appointments in the College of Education and in their subject-area departmental tenure home, e.g., Agricultural Education and Studies and Foreign Languages and Literatures.

Today, the ISU UTEP is offered through three colleges but is directed by the Dean of the

College of Human Sciences. See Figure 1-1 for the Institutional Organizational Chart. The

Associate Director of the Teacher Education Program (a newly re-defined position as of Spring

’05) carries out the policy and operations aspects of the program and chairs the University

Teacher Education Program Committee (UTEPC). The UTEPC is the executive committee for the program faculty. Colleges offering teacher licensure areas currently include: Agriculture,

Design,4 Human Sciences, and Liberal Arts and Sciences.

The Program has sponsored student- teaching sites on every continent except Antarctica, in metropolitan inner-city schools—an outgrowth of the innovative Cooperative Urban Teacher

Education Program (CUTE)—and across the state of Iowa.

Enrollment and endorsement information is summarized in Table 1-1 and Table 1-2.

Table 1-3 conveys the number of full-time and part-time faculty for ISU and UTE.

4 The College of Design closed admissions to Art Education in Spring 2004. The Art Education licensure area was discontinued at the end of the Spring 2005 semester.

11 Figure 1-1: Institutional Organizational Chart

Iowa State University Organizational Chart

President of the University Gregory L. Goeffrey

Office of the Vice President for Academic Vice President for Vice President for President Affairs and Provost Business and Finance Student Affairs Benjamin J. Allen Warren R Madden Thomas L. Hill

Vice Provost for Vice Provost for Chief Inst. for Physical Plant Science Extension Research Information Research and Institute Director Stanley R. Johnson John Brighton Officer Technology Stephen H. James A. Director Howell Davis Thomas J. Barton

College of College of College of College of College of College of Dean of College of Agriculture Business Design Engineering Human Liberal Arts the Library Veterinary Dean Dean Dean Dean Sciences and Olivia M. Medicine Catherine E. Labh S. Hira Mark C. Charles E. Dean Sciences Madison Dean Wotecki Engelbrecht Glatz Cheryl Dean John U. Achterberg Michael B. Thompson Whiteford 13 Table 1-1: Enrollment in Teacher Education and Iowa State University

Total ISU Year Enrollment Total Teacher Education Enrollment 2000-01 26,845 810 2001-02 27,823 898 2002-03 28,898 861 2003-04 27,380 865 2004-05 26,380 799

Percentage Of TE Year Total ISU Graduates UTEP Graduates Graduates 2000-01 4,019 340 8.5 2001-02 4,163 339 8.1 2002-03 4,481 349 7.8 2003-04 4,523 343 7.6 2004-05 4,047 *342 8.4

*Does not include Summer 2005 UTEP Graduates

14 Table 1-2: Number of Candidates Applying for Licensure by Endorsement Area, Fall 1999-Spring 2005 LICENSURE AREA ACADEMIC YEARS

Endorsement Description Level 99-00 00- 01- 02- 03- 04- 01 02 03 04 05 100 Teacher-PreK-3 PK-3 25 49 48 56 57 27 w/Special Ed 101 Athletic Coach K-12 5 10 8 1 0 3 102 Elementary K-6 130 152 140 169 170 56 103 PK-Kindergarten PK-K 1 0 0 0 0 0 104 English/Second K-12 3 0 2 8 6 2 Language 106 Early Childhood PK-3 2 1 0 0 0 0 Education 112 Agriculture 7-12 23 22 29 22 18 4 113 Art K-6 9 2 4 5 5 0 114 Art 7-12 9 2 4 5 5 0 119 English/Language K-6 19 25 17 37 36 10 Arts 120 English/Language 7-12 16 28 21 22 26 5 Arts 123 French K-6 1 0 0 1 4 1 124 French 7-12 0 3 0 2 1 1 125 German K-6 0 0 0 0 0 1 126 German 7-12 2 0 1 0 0 0 129 Latin K-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 Latin 7-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 Russian K-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 Russian 7-12 0 0 1 0 0 0 133 Spanish K-6 15 10 8 8 12 5 134 Spanish 7-12 9 6 7 8 7 1 136 Language 7-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Greek/Portuguese) 138 Health 7-12 1 2 2 4 2 3 139 Home Economics- 7-12 9 11 14 12 18 12 General 142 Mathematics K-6 8 10 14 11 21 8 143 Mathematics 7-12 13 7 8 9 12 4 144 Music K-6 9 12 14 10 7 6 145 Music 7-12 9 12 13 10 7 6 146 Physical Education K-6 4 12 12 13 9 6 147 Physical Education 7-12 7 14 13 18 10 6 148 Reading K-6 6 8 11 21 26 12 149 Reading 7-12 0 1 1 2 1 0 150 Science- Basic K-6 18 22 25 21 21 5 151 Biological Science 7-12 10 13 10 13 11 0 152 Chemistry 7-12 3 3 7 5 5 0 153 Earth Science 7-12 1 1 1 2 2 0 154 General Science 7-12 7 5 6 11 7 0 155 Physical Science 7-12 0 1 4 2 4 0

15 LICENSURE AREA ACADEMIC YEARS

Endorsement Description Level 99-00 00- 01- 02- 03- 04- 01 02 03 04 05 156 Physics 7-12 3 0 1 1 4 1 157 American 7-12 6 15 17 18 19 9 Government 158 American History 7-12 18 30 22 24 27 10 159 Anthropology 7-12 3 3 0 1 0 0 160 Economics 7-12 0 2 1 2 2 0 161 Geography 7-12 1 0 0 1 0 0 163 Psychology 7-12 3 1 4 1 6 2 164 Social Studies K-6 37 48 30 44 52 19 165 Sociology 7-12 6 4 5 4 7 1 166 World History 7-12 18 28 23 26 24 8 168 Speech Com/ 7-12 5 1 2 3 5 0 Theatre 174 School Media K-12 4 1 1 0 0 0 Specialists 182 Middle School 5-8 4 12 12 14 13 7 201 Behavioral K-6 2 0 2 2 1 Disorders 202 Behavioral 7-12 1 1 0 2 2 0 Disorders 208 Learning K-6 1 0 0 1 1 0 Disabilities 209 Learning 7-12 1 0 0 0 0 0 Disabilities 221 Multi-Categorical K-6 17 33 33 25 17 0 Resource (mild) 222 Multi-Categorical 7-12 6 0 3 3 0 1 Resource (mild) 223 Early Childhood PK-K 2 0 0 0 0 0 Special Ed. 225 Multi-Categorical K-6 2 1 2 0 3 0 Spec. Class Integ. 226 Multi-Categorical 7-12 2 1 1 2 1 0 Spec. Class Integ. 241 Consultant: Mental 5-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Disabilities 242 Consultant: 5-21 0 0 1 0 0 1 Behavioral Disorders 243 Consultant: 5-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Learning Disabilities 247 Consultant: ECSE B-6 0 1 0 0 1 0 248 Consultant: Multi- 5-21 0 4 1 0 0 1 Cat. Resource 249 Consultant: Multi- 5-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cat. SCI 260 Instructional K-6 New 0 Strategist I: Mild and Moderate

16 LICENSURE AREA ACADEMIC YEARS

Endorsement Description Level 99-00 00- 01- 02- 03- 04- 01 02 03 04 05

261 Instructional 7-12 New 0 Strategist I: Mild and Moderate 300 Agscience/ 7-12 23 22 29 22 17 4 Agribusiness 303 Home Economics- 7-12 9 10 14 12 17 10 Consumer 304 Home Economics- 7-12 6 10 14 12 17 10 Occupational

Note: The data represent the number of endorsements recommended. A student may seek more than one endorsement; thus a student may appear in more than one category, and the number of students recommended for licensure is less than the number of endorsements recommended.

Table 1-3: Number of Faculty: Full-Time and Part-Time 2000-2004

Academic Years* Faculty Group 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Total ISU Faculty 1,779 1,757 1,720 1,751 1,707 Full-Time 1,527 1,494 1,487 1,507 1,487 Part-Time 252 263 233 244 220

Total UTE Faculty 61 77 70 75 92 Full-Time 47 50 51 71 72 Part-Time 14 27 19 4 20 *Based on the Annual Summary Reports on Practitioner Preparation5

5 Exhibit 1-4: The Annual Summary Reports on Practitioner Preparation for 2000-2004 Academic Years are located in the Exhibit Room.

17 Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework The C³ Model Competent, Caring, Certified

The University Teacher Education Program at Iowa State University reflects the

Iowa State University Land-Grant Mission. Designed to serve Iowans through teaching, scholarship, and outreach, the UTEP seeks to:

 foster and encourage the creation, synthesis, and dissemination of new knowledge through basic and applied research;  focus on student learning outcomes, increasing the effectiveness of student learning, and the application of learning in practice; and  promote partnerships and collaboration with the B-12 education community and external education agencies.

The program prepares caring, competent and certified6 teachers poised to meet the challenges of a diverse and ever-changing world (Figure 2-1). Effective educators understand and orchestrate a variety of approaches to teaching and learning, demonstrating their sensitivity to and utilizing students’ cultures, contexts, and individual characteristics to produce effective learning and development. To achieve these goals, across the range of courses in the program, Iowa State University licensure candidates are introduced to and assessed on a variety of philosophical, psychological and anthropological approaches to education and life. They are also introduced to and assessed on a wide range of effective teaching approaches and methods applicable across disciplines as well as specific approaches within their content discipline.

Licensure candidates learn the content of what they teach through in-depth study of the relevant disciplines. They develop the necessary pedagogical-content knowledge and

6 For the purpose of our model, we are using ‘certified’ as a synonym for ‘licensable.’

18 Figure 2-1:

The C³ Teacher

Iowa State University Teacher Education Conceptual Framework

19 abilities through general and discipline-specific pedagogy courses and through supervised field experiences.

The program encourages faculty and students to engage in scholarship, reflective thought, and examination of a variety of philosophies, theories, and practices in diverse contexts. The fundamental goal is to prepare educators who can meet the current and future needs of their students, schools, and society. The expected outcomes are twofold:

 students and faculty who think independently, evolve and adapt; and  students and faculty who are knowledgeable about the historical past, create new knowledge, and challenge existing paradigms.

This framework reflects a deliberate program faculty decision to avoid a “one-size- fits-all,” monolithic and prescriptive approach to education.7 Debate, discussion, and critical and reflective thought contribute to the positive outcomes for students across the span of their licensure program, careers and lives. For faculty the program continually reinforces the institution’s mission to promote teaching, scholarship and outreach. Our conceptual framework underpins a dynamic UTEP from which graduates demonstrate competence in the State of Iowa Quality Teaching Standards and Model Criteria and

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium/University Teacher

Education Program (INTASC/UTEP) and Teacher Education Accreditation Council

(TEAC) Standards.

7 The conceptual framework was passed by University Teacher Education Program Committee on January 18, 2005 as noted in Table 3-2.

20 Supporting Bibliography:

Ball, A. F. (2002). Three decades of research on classroom life: Illuminating the classroom communicative lives of America’s at-risk students. In Secada, W. G. (Ed.), pp 71-111, Review of Research in Education, 26, Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Cochran-Smith, M. and Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166-173. Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: A Wiley Imprint. Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., and Pellegrino, J. W. (1999). How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Imig, D. G. & Switzer, T. J. (1996). Changing teacher education programs: Restructuring collegiate-based teacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 213-226). New York: Macmillan. Lambert, N. M. and McCombs, B. L. (1998). How Students Learn: Reforming Schools Through Learner-Centered Education, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Lee, Okhee, (2002). Promoting scientific inquiry with elementary students from diverse cultures and languages. In Secada, W. G. (Ed.). pp 23-70, Review of Research in Education, 26, Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington. DC: National Academies Press. Pressley, M & McCormick, C. (1995). Advanced educational psychology for educators, researchers, and policy makers. New York: Harper Collins. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57(1), 1-22. Smith, L. Glenn (Leonard Glenn). Teacher education at Iowa State University, 1868-1982. Ames: Research Institute for Studies in Education, Iowa State University, 1982.

21 Chapter 3: Unit Governance and Resource Standards

79.10(1). The professional education unit shall have primary responsibility for all programs offered at the institution for the initial and continuing preparation of teachers and other professional school personnel.

Although Iowa State’s University Teacher Education Program is offered through three academic colleges, the administrative responsibility, Professional Core Curriculum, Field

Experience Placement Services, Licensure Records, and Career Services for the entire Program rest with the College of Human Sciences, and ultimately its dean and director (Exhibit 3-1).8 The

UTEP is divided into two parts. One part focuses on initial teacher licensure and endorsements.

The second part is a graduate program that focuses on administrative licensure. This report addresses initial teacher preparation and licensure.

The Dean is responsible for the UTEP, including:

 Administering the UTEP, leading to initial licensure and candidate approval;  Appointing an Associate Director for Teacher Education  Chairing or designating the Associate Director to chair the University Teacher Education Program Committee (UTEPC);  Developing, in collaboration with UTEP faculty, and implementing the UTEP policies and procedures, e.g., admission standards, continuation standards, curriculum, field experiences and clinical settings, accreditation, compliance with State of Iowa Standards, liaison activities with the State of Iowa Department of Education, the Board of Educational Examiners, the Iowa Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, and other professional associations.

The Dean, in turn, has assigned daily program operation and management responsibilities to the Associate Director of the UTEP, the Teacher Education Program Operations Team

(TEPOT) and the University Teacher Education Program Committee (UTEPC). Figure 3-1

8 Exhibit 3-1: University Teacher Education Program and Partial College of Human Sciences Organizational Chart is located online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

22 illustrates the organization chart for University Teacher Education and Educator Licensure

Program.

Associate Director of Teacher Education

Supervises:  Program Coordinator  Field Experiences Office  Licensure Record Analyst

Leadership duties:  Chairs UTEPC  Coordinates admission to UTEP  Recommends and administers program curricula and policies  Handles student appeals  Supervises and contributes to the preparation of necessary reports, e.g., Accreditation  Convenes UTEP faculty meetings  Chairs Teacher Education Program Operations Team (TEPOT) meetings  Develops and gains faculty approval for teacher education curricula and policies as necessary  Teaches for UTEP program, as assigned  Maintains relationships with State Department of Education, the Board of Educational Examiners and Program Advisory Board  Maintains relationships with state and national organizations

Teacher Education Program Coordinator

Leadership duties:  Manages Praxis or other admissions testing  Maintains database for UTEP  Student records (admission, continuation, dismissals, appeals)  Maintains records on Designated Performance Indicators (DPIs), the assessment model and data, and follow-up studies  Coordinates UTEPC Teacher Education (TE) application approval process  Teaches in the program, as necessary  Maintains relationships with State Department of Education and Board of Educational Examiners  Maintains program budget

23 Figure 3-1: Organization Chart -- University Teacher Education and Educator Licensure Program Dean and Director of Teacher Education and Educator Licensure

Associate Director, University Teacher Education Program

University Teacher Education Teacher Education Program Program Committee Operations Team (TEPOT)

2 Support Staff

University Teacher Education Program Program Coordinator Faculty

Licensure Analyst Licensure Area Coordinators

*Career Services/Credentials

Director of Field Experiences Advisory Committee

Associate Director of Field Experiences

Field Experiences Coordinator

2 Support Staff

*Coordinator meets, as appropriate, with TEPOT, but reports to Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education for the College of Human Sciences.

24 University Teacher Education Faculty

The faculty have tenure homes in three colleges, at present, but in addition to their tenure-home responsibilities in scholarship, teaching and service, they also have curricular and policy responsibilities for the UTEP and meet at least once each semester to discuss UTEP improvement issues. Table 3-1 lists the current UTEP tenured-track faculty. Exhibit 3-2 lists the

UTEP membership from 1999 to 2005.9

UTEP faculty are selected to serve on the UTEP Committee (UTEPC), the executive committee for the program faculty and liaison to the program administrators.

The voting membership of the UTEPC consists of:

 One member from each department who has responsibility for the pedagogical preparation of teachers. As of fall, 2005, membership includes the Departments of Agricultural Education and Studies; Curriculum and Instruction; English; Apparel, Educational Studies, and Hospitality Management (for the Family and Consumer Science Education option); Foreign Languages and Literatures; Health and Human Performance; Human Development and Family Studies; and Music.  A second member from CI representing the pedagogical core classes  A K-12 teacher  A K-12 administrator  A B-PK teacher  The Associate Director of Teacher Education  An undergraduate student (elementary or early childhood education)  An undergraduate student (secondary education)

Ex-officio members include:

 The Teacher Education Record Analyst  The Director of Field Experiences  The Teacher Education Program Coordinator

The UTEPC has operational governance responsibility and policy setting responsibility for the UTEP. The UTEPC admits students to teacher education and determines the policies that govern the UTEP. Table 3-2 summarizes UTEPC actions during academic year 2004-2005.

9 Exhibit 3-2: List of UTEP Membership from 1999 to 2005 can be found online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

25 The Teacher Education Program Operations Team (TEPOT) is composed of the Associate

Director, the Program Coordinator, the Director of Field Experiences and the Licensure Analyst.

This team manages daily program business, prepares UTEPC agendas, delivers support services, etc.

The UTEP faculty, program administrators and the operations staff provide vision, lead, coordinate and manage the UTEP, even though they span three colleges. They also work closely with the licensure-area coordinators and appropriate academic advisors.

Information flow, coordination, and timely redress of problems have improved substantially since our last accreditation site visit because of these structural changes. Though the Program functioned adequately in the past, the present structure operates even more effectively. Perhaps best, the current structure is flexible enough that as needs change and as the results of our systematic program assessment evolve, the UTEP faculty and administrative team are ready and able to make the necessary adjustments. Finally, the restructuring has led to a feeling of collegiality and collaboration among the UTEP Faculty and Program Administrators.

Table 3-1: Teacher Education Faculty as of Fall 2005

Name Tenure Sex Ethnic Primary Second- Hire Code Code Code College ary Date

26 College Appoint- Appoint- ment Ment Agriculture n =6 Esters Levon Ph.D. P M 2 A H 20040101 Jones Lynn Ph.D. T M 1 A 19880501 Martin Robert Ph.D. T M 1 A H 19830901 Miller Greg Ph.D. T M 1 A H 19920901 Miller Wade Ph.D. T M 1 A H 19800901 Retallick Mike Ph.D. M 1 A 20010116 Design n=2 Caldwell Barbara Ed.D. T F 1 C 19960816 Dake Dennis M.A. T M 1 C 19710901 Human Sciences n=54 Abelson Geoff Ph.D. T M 1 H 19761201 Andre Thomas Ph.D. T M 1 H S 19740901 Andreotti Alex Ph.D. N M 5 H 19970816 Baker Janice M.S. T F 1 H S 19810821 Bloom Leslie Ph.D. T F 1 H 19930821 Blount Jackie Ph.D. T F 1 H 19930821 Blumenfeld Warren Ed.D. P M 1 H 20040601 Brotherson Mary Jane Ph.D. T F 1 H 19900821 Bruna Katherine Ph.D. P F 1 H 20030816 Carlson Patricia Ph.D. T F 1 H 19900821 Clough Mike Ph.D. P M 1 H 19990816 Colbert Karen Ph.D. N F 1 H 19900501 Corriera, Anna Ph.D. P F 5 H 20050815 Crase Sedahlia Ph.D. T F 1 H 19711201 Davis Nicola Ph.D. T F 1 H 20000101 Drake, Corey Ph.D. P F 1 H 20050815 Draper Dianne Ph.D. T F 1 H 19710101 Duea James M.A. N M 1 H 20031101 Eisenmann Joey Ph.D. P M 1 H 20030801 Fairchild Ellen Ph.D. N F 1 H 20020816 Foegen Anne Ph.D. T F 1 H 19950816 Fuhler Carol Ed.D. T F 1 H 19990816 Gentzler Yvonne Ph.D. T F 1 H 19991101 Gregoire Mary Ph.D. T F 1 H 19980801 Hargrave Connie Ph.D. T F 2 H 19910901 Hausafus Cheryl Ph.D. T F 1 H 19761011 Hegland Sue Ph.D. T F 1 H 19771201 Herbel-Eisenmann Beth Ph.D. P F 1 H 20030816 Huey Gayle M.S. F 1 H 19900821 Keino Leah Kagima Ph.D. P F 2 H 20040816 Kruempel Beverly Ph.D. N F 1 H 19891101 Leigh Patricia Ph.D. T F 2 H 19970816 Lipsey Holly M.S. N F 1 H 20020816 Luze Gayle Ph.D. P F 1 H 20000821 McShay James Ph.D. N M 2 H 20000816 Merkley Donna Ph.D. T F 1 H 19810601 Niederhauser Dale Ph.D. P M 1 H 20010816

27 Norris Michael M.Ed. N M 2 H 20030101 Norton-Meier Lori Ph.D. P F 1 H 20030816 Olson Joanne Ph.D. P F 1 H 19990816 Owen David Ph.D. T M 1 H S 19850821 Pak Young Chin B.A. C M 3 H 19750901 Peterson Carla Ph.D. T F 1 H 19920101 Phye Gary Ph.D. T M 1 H S 19700901 Schabel Frank H.S.D. T M 1 H 19760901 Schmidt Denise Ph.D. P F 1 H 19950901 Seymour Jenna Ph.D. P F 1 H 20040816 Smith Carl Ph.D. T 1 H 20040816 Stalker Veronica Ph.D. C F 1 H 20050110 Thomas Jerry Ed.D. T M 1 H 19980701 Thomas Katherine Ph.D. T F 1 H 19980816 Thompson Ann Ph.D. T F 1 H 19800901 Torrie Margaret Ed.D. T F 1 H 19770901 Trost Betty M.S. F 1 H 20020816 LAS n=15 Colbert James Ph.D. T M 1 S 19880821 Dolphin Warren Ph.D. T M 1 S 19700901 Greenbowe Thomas Ph.D. T M 1 S H 19900821 Hentzel Irvin Ph.D. T M 1 S 19680901 Johnston Elgin Ph.D. T M 1 S 19770901 Meltzer David Ph.D. P M 1 S 19980601 Messenger Joseph D.M.A. T M 1 S H 19690901 Munsen Sylvia Ed.D. T F 1 S H 19950816 Niday Donna Ph.D. T F 1 S 19960816 Quinn-Allen Linda Ph.D. P F 1 S H 20000816 Ringlee Connie M.S. N F 1 S 20020816 Rosenbush Marcia Ph.D. C F 1 S H 19830101 Schilling Kevin D.M. T M 1 S H 19720901 Tremmel Bob Ph.D. T M 1 S 19890821 Vann Roberta Ph.D. T F 1 S 19780901 College Code: Ethnic Code: Tenure Code: A=Agriculture 1=White T=Tenured H=Human Sciences 2=African-American P=Probation-Tenure Track C=Design 3=Asian C=Clinical S=Liberal Arts and 5=Hispanic N=Non-Tenure Sciences

28 Table 3-2: University Teacher Education Program Committee Action Summary 2004-2005

Meeting Minute Action Vote Implement Date s 9/7/04 #205 Approval of 05-07 Catalog Changes: Approved 05-07  Faculty names listed Catalog  Eight standards listed (conversion from 11 to 8)  PE requirement removed from general education section  Teacher Education (TE) admission requirement of 2.5 cum, minimum composite ACT or SAT or HS rank above 49th percentile, and composite score of 522 on PRAXIS I  Minimum grade of C in student teaching 9/13/04 #206 Discussion 9/28/04 #207 Reminded admission to TE must occur one full semester prior to student teaching semester Agreed that a background check is valid 6 months prior to admission to TE 10/11/04 #208 1) Agreed that TE admission forms are due the 1st Approved Immediate week of class each semester 2) Updated list of Am Hist/Am Gov’t courses for general education requirement 3) Approved revised collaborative teaching experience (CTE) information document 10/26/04 #209 Defined Chapter 79 mathematics requirement Approved Immediate 11/8/04 #210 Reviewed concordance table for 8 vs 11 standards approved by TEAC accreditation committee 11/16/04 #211 Discussion 12/6/04 #212 Agreed to omit the college signature on “TE Approved Immediate Admission” form (advisor/department signature required) 1/18/05 #213 Agreed to adopt the conceptual framework Approved Immediate document 1/31/05 #214 Discussion 2/15/05 #215 Policy set that student may not have an Approved Fall 2005 unacceptable or two marginally acceptable to continue in the program, student teach or be licensed 2/28/05 #216 Discussion 3/8/05 #217 Discussion 4/5/05 #218 Clarified requirements for CTE document Refer to #208 4/18/05 #219 Discussion 5/3/05 #220 Discussion

29 79.10(2). Unit faculty shall collaborate with members of the professional community, including the unit’s advisory committee, to design, deliver, and evaluate programs to prepare school personnel.

UTEP faculty and staff collaborate with members of the professional community to design, deliver, and evaluate our program. First, historically B-12 education practitioners serve on the UTEPC. These individuals provide invaluable frontline wisdom and suggestions to help set the course for the UTEP. The Associate Director has over 30 years experience in B-12 settings as both a teacher and administrator and now as a clinical professor in the Department of

Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (ELPS).

Second, some departments with teacher education programs have their own advisory committees composed, in part, of current practitioners. For example, the Department of

Curriculum & Instruction has an advisory committee. Similarly, the Department of Agriculture

Education and Studies has its own advisory committee of practicing educators.

Nearly every academic department on campus has such an advisory committee; however, those departments with significant teacher education responsibilities also have education practitioners serving on those committees (Exhibit 3-3).10 A list of the membership of UTEPC is also part of Exhibit 3-2.

Third, there are many other means by which practitioners inform the shape and direction of ISU’s UTEP (Exhibit 3-4).11 Most important among these: Field Experiences staff routinely ask cooperating teachers for feedback about how the program can be improved. Additional

10 Exhibit 3-3: List of members and agendas for the Advisory Committee of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction from 1999-2004 is located in the Exhibit Room.

11 Exhibit 3-4: Examples of Practicing Teacher Involvement in Iowa State Teacher Preparation is located online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

30 feedback is solicited regularly in the form of surveys.12 Also, when cooperating teachers attend workshops hosted by the Field Experiences Office, teachers are asked directly for feedback. In general, the information that cooperating teachers provide about the quality and areas for improvement of our students, especially student teachers, is extremely valuable to the welfare of our program. For many years, the Department of Curriculum and Instruction (CI), the Field

Experiences Office staff and the Research Institute for Studies in Education (RISE) have collected information about the quality of our students and of our program. The Departments of

CI and Human Development and Family Studies (HDFS), in collaboration with RISE, have developed an ongoing plan for collecting information from graduates and employers.13 Past survey results have been distributed to program faculty. The results of the assessment model also are distributed to the UTEP faculty and UTEPC to inform program planning and decision- making. Further, the program leverages the expertise of professional educators for direct instruction of undergraduates. For example, master teachers are invited to campus as part of the

“teacher in residence” program, and professional educators teach or team-teach classes on campus with university faculty.

79.10(3). Resources shall support quality clinical practice for all candidates, professional development for faculty, and technological and instructional needs of faculty to prepare candidates with the dispositions, knowledge, and skills necessary to support student learning.

Support for Clinical Practice: Clinical practice for K-12 teacher education students is arranged through the Field Experiences Office, which had been administratively located within the Department of Curriculum & Instruction (CI).14 The Field Experience Office works

12 See Chapter 8: Practitioner Preparation Candidate Performance: Candidate Assessment and Unit Planning and Evaluation.

13See Table 8-2: Planned Schedule of Follow-Up Assessments of Graduates 14 The Field Experience Office was moved to the University Teacher Education Program, July 1, 2005.

31 collaboratively with licensure-area coordinators in the departments to identify possible placement sites. In addition, Birth-Pre-K placements are made by the Practicum Placement

Coordinator in the Department of HDFS. Both offices collaborate to deliver seamless service and mentoring.

In past years, expenses associated with field experiences in K-12 schools mostly were borne by the CI Department, except for a course fee associated with student travel to practica sites. The cost of Field Experience courses greatly exceeded the average cost per credit hour of on-campus instruction, primarily because of increased costs to make a placement and because of the cooperating teacher fee. In 2002, a course fee to pay the cooperating teacher’s fee was instituted after permission was received through the University course fee approval process.

With this additional source of revenue, plus its annual budget, the Field Experiences Office maintains its high standard of quality. The scope of the Field Experiences programs is described more fully in Chapter 6 (see Exhibit 3-5)15

Faculty Professional Development: Professional development activities for UTEP faculty are funded in several ways. First, departments typically reserve some of their operating budgets for professional travel or other faculty development activities (Table 3-3). CI, for example, currently provides $400/year for faculty who wish to attend professional conferences and who are presenting a paper. A former College of Education development fund had supplemented this amount.16 Faculty can receive an additional $200 for travel. In addition, in CI, the professional

Table 3-3: Amount of Support for Presenting at Conferences provided by Department and College for Faculty in Teacher Education Departments Department College Amount Provided Amount Provided By Dept by College

15 Exhibit 3-5: Fee Structure for Field Experiences is online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

16 It is anticipated that similar funding will be provided by the College of Human Sciences.

32 Curriculum and Human Sciences $400 if presenting $200 (from Instruction (Education) $6001 in 2005-2006 Education) Health and Human Human Sciences $850 if presenting $200 (from Performance (Education) $600 if attending only Education) $1000 (junior faculty if presenting) $800 (junior faculty if attending) Apparel, Educational Human Sciences $600-$800 if presenting $400 (from FSC) Studies, and (Family and Consumer Hospitality Sciences, FCS) Management Human Development Human Sciences $250 if presenting $350 (from FSC) and Family Studies (Family and Consumer Sciences) Agricultural Education Agriculture $500-$750 if presenting at and Studies Conference depending on location $200 for Professional Development Activities English Liberal Arts and Sciences $500 (plus some additional from year LAS faculty can end funds if available, if presenting) apply for mini- (tenured faculty) grants to $1000 (tenure track, if presenting) supplement department funds (typical range $500-$1000) Foreign Languages Liberal Arts and Sciences $350 (tenured if presenting) LAS faculty can and Literatures $500 (untenured if presenting) apply for mini- grants to supplement department funds (typical range $500-$1000) Music Liberal Arts and Sciences LAS faculty can apply for mini- grants to supplement department funds (typical range $500-$1000)

core faculty have 40 percent of their responsibilities assigned to scholarship and 10 percent to engagement. Both of these assignments expect ongoing involvement with the professional

33 literature as well as an active scholarship agenda. Keeping up with the literature is a major professional development activity. Teacher education faculty in the other departments similarly have a significant proportion of their responsibilities assigned to scholarship and engagement.

Second, the colleges and university support a broad array of opportunities for faculty development, including in-depth grant writing workshops. Most colleges provide summer salary support for first-year faculty to develop their scholarship and for other assistant professors on a competitive basis. A wide range of administrative units and organizations on campus sponsor events, speakers, and workshops to assist faculty in developing their skills. Research units on campus, such as RISE, the Institute for Social and Behavioral Research, as well as other units provide workshops or one-on-one assistance to faculty seeking to expand their expertise in research methodologies. Some internal grants/resources are provided by ISU for Faculty

Professional Development Assignments. In such assignments, the faculty member is relieved from teaching and carries out assignments that enhance disciplinary knowledge and productivity.

Also available are Instructional Development grants. Small-scale instructional development grants enhance particular aspects of courses. Miller Fellowships, for example, are designed to support larger-scale instructional development projects. New assistant professors in the College of Education, prior to the college combination, for example, typically were supported for a month of research in the summer following the first year; and typically supported in grant- writing workshops. Support for more advanced faculty to attend grant writing workshops also has been available. Faculty in the UTEP also are encouraged to identify and pursue external sources of funding for other professional development opportunities. Numerous workshops and seminars related to use of technology in teaching are available through the University’s

Academic Information Technologies Unit. The Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching

34 provides talks, workshops, and experiences related to professional development in teaching.

Statistical consulting is available through RISE and the University’s Statistics Laboratory. In addition, the expectation that faculty will be active scholars, regularly attending conferences, presenting, and publishing in their fields also promotes ongoing professional development.

Technological Needs of Faculty: Several resources are available at ISU to assist faculty in using technology in their teaching, and in turn, to assist their students in using those technologies. The Instructional Technology Center regularly offers a wide variety of classes, lectures, hands-on sessions, and other activities to assist faculty in using technologies in their instructional work.17 The University also supports two online learning environments for faculty to use with their classes: WebCT and ClassNet, a proprietary system devised by ISU faculty and staff. A large collection of electronic resources is available to faculty who wish to develop skills in using WebCT. Also, WebCT workshops are offered each semester on a variety of topics. The

Instructional Technology Center maintains nearly one hundred fully equipped multi-media classrooms around campus.

Individual colleges provide computers and technical support to their faculty. For example, in the past, within the College of Education, a technology support specialist and her staff insure that all computers function correctly, that anti-virus software is current, and that back-ups are kept current. In the new College of Human Sciences, the technology support staff will be available under a new support model. A new support plan will emerge, but the goal is to maintain or enhance the current level of support. Within the CI Department, a graduate course involves graduate students as technology mentors for CI faculty. Mentors work one-on-one with interested faculty, helping faculty members gain skills to integrate technology for effective

17 Instructional Technology Center’s website: http://www.itc.iastate.edu/

35 learning and teaching in their classes. Mentors gain mentoring experience and skills while faculty improve effective use of technology. Faculty typically sign up quickly each year to be assigned a graduate student technology mentor.18

The Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching maintains the CTLT laboratories used by faculty in teaching educational technology courses and UTEP courses. The equipment available includes: computer laboratories used for teaching in the basic and advanced technology courses, video-editing equipment, high-level scanning equipment (slide/film scanner), poster- sized printer, and internet-based audio-visual communication equipment. Checkout equipment include laptop computers, digital cameras and video cameras, audio-recorders, LCD projectors, and software.

Instructional Needs of Faculty: The Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching

(CELT) is the university’s central resource to support the enhancement of quality instruction on campus. The CELT sponsors a large number of ongoing classes, reading groups, workshops, and retreats for faculty who wish to sharpen their teaching skills. Individual consultations are always available. Also, the CELT maintains a comprehensive library of books and other resources related to effective teaching and learning.

79.10(4). Practitioner and administrator candidates’ and faculty’s access to books, journals, and electronic information shall support teaching and scholarship.

ISU currently maintains an extensive and growing collection of resources to assist student, staff, and faculty scholarship. The Parks library houses over 2,300,000 volumes and

18 The Faculty Technology Mentoring website: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mstar/mentor/home.html

36 nearly 30,000 journals. Electronic resources, microforms, photos & slides, films and videos, audio materials, manuscripts & archives, and aerial photos & maps round out the collection. All

ISU students, staff, and faculty members who possess a university ID are eligible to check out library materials.19

This past year, the Parks Library reported 1,868,447 visits from patrons or users. The building and its branch sites contain over 3000 seats. As further indication of the facility’s use, over 330,000 items were checked out last year and many more were used only in the library20

A significant development for the library in recent years has been the creation of e-

Library, a comprehensive online collection of the library’s resources. Chief among these resources are the electronic library catalog and hundreds of electronic databases, indices and reference materials. Many electronic resources are fully available to members of the ISU community through a web interface, provided that they enter their university ID. Other resources are available only through campus computers, or in some cases, only at Parks Library itself. The complete set of electronic resources available grows daily as library staff add new databases, indices, full-text books and journals, and other materials. Last year, the e-Library web site had

11,264,030 visitors.21

79.10(5). Sufficient numbers of faculty and administrative, clerical, and technical staff shall be available to ensure the consistent planning, delivery, and quality of programs offered for the preparation of school personnel.

19 ISU library website: www.lib.iastate.edu/libinfo/factsfigs.html 20 Ibid. 21 ISU Library website: www.lib.iastate.edu for a current list of all electronic resources.

37 Department budgets cover salaries for the UTEP Faculty (full-time, part-time, adjunct, and joint appointments) involved in the program’s teaching, research, and outreach/extension activities. There are 76 voting Teacher Education faculty members (Table 3-1).

Included in the University budget, the program has an Associate Director (.5 FTE), 3.5

FTEs are professional and scientific (P&S) employees, and 3 FTEs are Merit employees

(secretaries and clerks). Finally, units within the Colleges of Agriculture, Design, Human

Sciences, and Liberal Arts and Sciences use a portion of their budgets to support the University

Teacher Education Program (Exhibit 3.6)22

79.10(6). The use of part-time faculty and graduate students in teaching roles shall be managed to ensure integrity, quality, and continuity of programs.

Part-time faculty employed in teacher education through CI typically have a minimum of a master’s degree in their area (or equivalent) and one year’s teaching experience. Part-time faculty in methods courses typically have extensive teaching experience in B-12 schools as well as a Master’s or other advanced degree. Part-time faculty in CI are reviewed by the Chair of the

Department, the Director of Undergraduate Education, and the leader of the appropriate

Curriculum team (Table 3-4). Student evaluations of part-time faculty are carried out in the same manner as student evaluations of tenure-line faculty, and typically student evaluations are at least as positive as those of tenure –line faculty. Table 3-5 provides support for this contention. It presents the mean course evaluations for each item on the CI course evaluation form for temporary lecturers and for all faculty for undergraduate courses from Fall 2002-Spring

2003. Means are simple averages across sections and are not weighted by the number of students within sections. Lower numbers represent more positive ratings on the form (e.g. 1 is best, 5 is worst). The lecturer means are trivially different from and more positive than the

22 Exhibit 3-6: ISU Budget for FY00-FY06 is located in the Exhibit Room.

38 overall means. (Note: the lecturer means are included in the overall means, which are calculated by the University’s testing service.) The overall means represent a wider range of courses and a greater proportion of beginning level, larger courses than the lecturer means. Larger courses tend to be rated less positively. The major point is that the lecturer means are not substantially different than the overall means. These data support the contention that part-time faculty are as well received by students as tenure line faculty. In addition, the data indicate that courses are rated quite positively overall. Most of the means are between the most positive (1) and second most positive rating (2).

39 Table 3-4: Department of Curriculum and Instruction Hiring and Evaluation of Lecturer and Clinical Faculty Governance Document Section 8.1 1. Responsibility for hiring rests with the Chair. Under joint governance the Chair will consult with the tenured faculty and relevant staff in carrying out L&CF hiring. This document specifies procedures for joint consultation. The Chair may override the recommendations of the faculty by not hiring someone recommended by the faculty, but will communicate his or her reasons to the faculty in writing should she or he do so. In no case will the Chair hire a L&CF member without having consulted with the faculty as specified in this policy. 2. When a L&CF is hired for not more than one course and not more than one semester, the CI faculty delegate hiring responsibility to the Chair and/or the “DOGE” or “Director of Undergraduate Education”. Depending on the emergency nature of the situation, the Chair and DUGE or DOGE will both try to be involved. In all cases, the Chair and Faculty will be informed about who is hired. 3. If an individual will be rehired for a second semester or term, the Chair, DUGE or DOGE and the curricular team leader(s) for the respective team(s) will collaborate on the hiring decision. 4. When a L&CF is hired for more than one course or more than one semester, the Chair, DUGE or DOGE, and the curricular team leader(s) for the respective team(s) will review the qualifications of the applicants and make the hiring decision. 5. Promotions to Senior Lecturer/ Clinician appointments will be treated in the same manner as tenure line appointments with a faculty review committee and input from the faculty as a whole in the hiring/appointment process (see below for promotion to Senior Lecturer/Clinician appointments). 6. In all cases, the L&CF member and the Chair (DUGE or DOGE) will prepare and sign a position responsibility statement for each term of appointment that will be kept on file in the main office. 7. The Chair, DUGE or DOGE, and/or leaders of the respective curricular teams will provide the hired person with information about the University, College, and Department policies and information about the design of courses and course expectations. This provision may consist of references to appropriate web pages with relevant information. 8. The hired person will sign the Department’s form indicating that they have read and will abide by the University policies on harassment. 9. In an emergency situation, the Chair (DUGE or DOGE) may appoint a lecturer or clinician (not a Senior Lecturer or Clinician) for a one-semester appointment without consultation with the faculty. 10. For the purpose of this policy, an emergency is defined as a situation in which there is a teaching vacancy and there is insufficient time to consult with the faculty as specified in this policy. 11. Faculty will be informed of all individuals hired as lecturers or clinicians. All individuals hired as lecturers/clinicians will be requested to attend one faculty meeting so that faculty can meet with the individual. For the same reason, individuals hired as lecturers/clinicians will also be invited to all social functions of the department.

40 Table 3-5: Mean Course Evaluations for Lecturers and All Instructors in CI Undergraduate Courses, 2002-2005 Lecturer CI mean Mean Difference Stimulated my interest in the subject matter 1.75 1.97 (0.23) Treated me and others with respect 1.38 1.51 (0.12) Explained expectations clearly 1.76 1.97 (0.21) Positive attitude about the course 1.37 1.50 (0.13) Improved understanding of the subject 1.71 1.84 (0.12) Made system of assigning grades clear 1.83 2.05 (0.22) Gave me a clear idea of how I was doing 2.00 2.14 (0.15) Taught concepts in a systematic manner 1.77 1.87 (0.10) Presented course material efficiently 1.82 1.95 (0.13) Modeled variety of teaching techniques 1.89 2.06 (0.18) Encouraged individual and team participation 1.48 1.63 (0.15) Grading procedures reflected course objectives outlined in syllabus 1.67 1.81 (0.14) Course was well organized and presented logically 1.80 1.91 (0.11) Quantity of course material covered was appropriate 1.71 1.92 (0.21) Course will prove valuable when entering real teaching 1.67 1.85 (0.18) Course reading assignments were appropriate 2.01 2.18 (0.17) Course assignments were relevant 1.65 1.83 (0.18) Course was multicultural and non-sexist in nature 1.46 1.57 (0.11) Course teaching aids/resources added to interest and understanding 1.81 1.98 (0.17) Recent research and new strategies included in course content 1.74 1.85 (0.10)

In the first semester a non-tenure line faculty member teaches in CI, a midterm course evaluation is conducted to provide feedback to the faculty member and Chair or Director of

Undergraduate Education. Curricular teams in CI review the syllabi23 of all part-time faculty to ensure alignment with program curricular objectives and Designated Performance Indicators assigned to the course.

Part-time faculty in other departments than CI are hired and evaluated by policies and procedures specified in those departments. The University’s non-tenure track faculty policies

23 Exhibit 3-7: Course Syllabi for each of the Teacher Education Courses is located online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

41 have required that each department develop procedures for hiring and evaluating non-tenure track faculty.24

79.10(7). Institutional commitment shall include financial resources, facilities and equipment to ensure the fulfillment of the institution’s and unit’s missions, delivery of quality programs, and preparation of practitioner candidates.

Financial Resources. Colleges and departments at ISU have considerable autonomy with regard to financial resources. Every year, the Provost sets the budget for each college – usually at some set percentage above (or more recently, below) the budget for the previous year. College deans then work with chairs to finalize departmental budgets. Each unit receives a block budget for the year that funds all faculty and staff salaries and provides additional money for unit expenses such as instructional supplies, equipment, printing, telephones, travel, and other possible uses. In four of the last five years (the past year being the exception), college and department budgets were cut because of budget shortfalls. Chairs work with their faculties to determine how best to use non-salary funds.

Table 3-6 shows the budget for the newly created University Teacher Education Program office for the current year (faculty salaries and other expenditures are listed in department budgets in Exhibit 3-6:

Table 3-6: Office of Teacher Education Proposed Budget, 2005-2006

Description Amount Salaries and Benefits 373,031.00 Other Expenditures 115,199.00 Additional Funds 50,000.00 Total 538,230.00

24 Non-tenure Track Hiring Policies: http://www.provost.iastate.edu/faculty/handbook/current/section3.html and Faculty Evaluation Policies: http://www.provost.iastate.edu/faculty/handbook/current/section5.html#section-5.1.1

42 In addition to normally budgeted resources (Exhibit 3.6), all ISU students are assessed a computer fee each semester. This funding supports the purchase of computers for student labs around campus, software for those labs, and other technology that directly benefit students.

Because students pay this fee, they have equal representation with faculty/staff on committees that determine how the funds are used.25

For example, the College of Human Sciences, working with ISU Extended and

Continuing Education, offers some of its programs and courses at off-campus sites with emphasis on serving place-bound Iowans. Revenue from off-campus teaching expands the financial base of the College, allowing components of the UTEP to be delivered at various sites in Iowa. Courses are delivered on-site, over the Iowa Communications Network, and through the web.

Facilities. The university provides resources and facilities for all components of its

UTEP. For example, the Dean’s Office of the College of Human Sciences, the Department of CI, the Department of ELPS, the CTLT, the Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics

Education, and the RISE all are located in Lagomarcino Hall, along with classrooms, computer and other labs, and faculty offices. Other licensure areas in the UTEP are housed within their respective departments on campus.

Conclusion

Table 3-7 and Figures 3-2 and 3-3 below provide summary data on selected characteristics of departments in the CHS and across the colleges. There are no available data that separate the full costs of the teacher education program as an entity because the program is divided and administratively located in eight departments across three colleges. These data are

25 Computation Advisory Committee website: http://www.iastate.edu/~cac/

43 taken from Fall, 2002 and represent a selection for a spreadsheet compiled by the Provost’s office for examining budgets across departments and colleges.

Within the data, CI represents the department that is most purely a teacher education department. All of its undergraduate majors and faculty are in teacher education. In the remaining departments, only a portion of the undergraduate majors and faculty are directly involved in teacher preparation. However, about 70% of the faculty in teacher education are members of the CHS. Because the data are based on Fall 2002, data for the Colleges of

Education and FCS are included as the CHS did not exist at that time.

The data indicate that CI generates a relatively large number of student credit hours per full time equivalent faculty as does Health and Human Performance. These ratios are slightly below the SCH / FTE ratios of the two colleges with largest ratios (Business and Liberal Arts and Sciences). As a result, at the time, Education had the third largest SCH/FTE ratio. (See

Figure 3-4).

Figures 3-3 and 3-4 summarize the ratio of funding provided to the departments and colleges to SCH generated and FTE faculty. CI is among the departments receiving the lowest amount of funding per SCH or FTE.

Departments can generate high SCH / FTE ratios by having a large number of majors or by teaching courses frequently taken by students in other departments. Figure 3-5 presents the number of majors per FTE. CI has a high ratio as does HHP. As a result, the former College of

Education had the highest major to FTE ratio in the university.

44 Table 3-7: Selected Department and College Characteristics related to Support, Fall 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003 Data

Dept. Allocation- from General Total FY03 Fall 2002 Fund ($) Gen Fund SCH Fall 2002 Grad. (includes Allocation / Enrollment Allocation / Allocation DEPTS FTE Faculty Taught Majors Majors) summer) SCH SCH / FTE /FTE FTE / Majors AESHM 24.76 11,261 401 58 2,758,482 245 455 19 111409 6010 AgEdSt-Ag 6.99 2,579 178 44 1,088,134 422 369 32 155670 4902 ArtDsgn 42.76 19,173 593 50 3,203,615 167 448 15 74921 4982 C&I 35.66 22,617 934 118 3,260,444 144 634 30 91431 3099 FSHN tot 26.35 7096 252 70 3,728,108 525 269 12 141484 11578 HDFS 30.63 17,271 364 98 4,076,711 236 564 15 133095 8824 HHP 20.68 15,425 804 34 2,334,315 151 746 41 112878 2786 Engl 89.52 47,077 330 126 6,137,717 130 526 5 68563 13460 FLL 35.10 13,498 163 0 2,163,747 160 385 5 61645 13275 Mus 30.44 14,391 180 0 2,373,222 165 473 6 77964 13185 AG 18.83 4,118 614 47 2,829,664 687 219 35 150274 4281 BUS 13.79 11,565 410 27 1,747,548 151 839 32 126726 3999 DESN 23.37 9,084 458 39 1,879,220 207 389 21 80412 3781 EDUC 20.16 11,445 654 107 2,197,728 192 568 38 109014 2888 ENGR 20.98 9,777 568 105 3,431,789 351 466 32 163574 5099 FCS 21.61 11,164 397 67 3,375,138 302 517 21 156184 7274 LAS 27.40 18,534 251 67 2,967,383 160 676 12 108299 9331

AESHM Apparel, Educational Studies, and Hospitality Management EDUC College of Education AgEdSt Agricultural Education and Studies ENGR College of Engineering ArtDsgn Art and Design FCS College of Family and Consumer Sciences CI Curriculum and Instruction LAS College of Liberal Arts and Science FSHN Food Science and Human Nutrition HDFS Human Development and Family Studies HHP Health and Human Performance ENGL English Mus Music FLL Foreign Language and Literature AG College of Agriculture BUS College of Business DESN College of Design

45 Figure 3-2: Student Credit Hours /Full Time Equivalent Faculty in Teacher Education Departments and the Colleges*

SCH / Faculty FTE Fall 2002

900 800 700 E 600 T

F 500 /

C 300 S 200 100 0

Dept and Coll

*Departments and Colleges without undergraduate majors excluded (ELPS/Vet Med)

Figure 3-3: Department and College Funding / Student Credit Hour

Funding / SCH Fall 2002

800 700 H

C 600 S

s 400 r

a 300 l l 200 o

D 100 0

Dept and Coll

46 Figure 3-4: Departmental Funding Per Full Time Equivalent Faculty Member.

Allocation / FTE

180000 160000 E 140000 T

F 120000

/ 100000 s r 80000 a l l 60000 o 40000 D 20000 0

Dept or Coll

Figure 3-5: Number of Majors Per Full Time Equivalent Faculty Member

Majors / FTE E

T 45 F

s 35 r

o 30 j a 25 M

r 10 e

m 0 u N

Dept and Coll

47 Chapter 4: Diversity

The University Teacher Education Program (or UTEP), like ISU itself, strives to have as diverse a faculty, staff, and student population as possible. Broad recognition of diversity includes these categories: race, ethnicity, and gender. Additionally, persons with various disabilities, from different language and socioeconomic backgrounds, and from different geographical regions are included as recommended by the state code. The quality and value of diversity exists in an environment that encourages discussion and debate, cultural sharing, social support, and strong mutual regard, greatly enhancing the value of study in the teacher education program. It enhances students’ likelihood for success in dealing with the social and cultural diversity they will encounter as they enter their professions. ISU faculty, staff, and professional community believe that unequal treatment based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or economic status is unacceptable and must be acknowledged, challenged, and changed.

79.11(1). Recruitment, admissions, hiring, and retention policies and practices shall support a diverse faculty and candidate population in the unit. & 79.11(2). Efforts toward racial, ethnic, and gender diversity among education candidates and unit faculty shall be documented. In addition, diversity efforts shall include persons with disabilities, persons from different language and socioeconomic backgrounds, and persons from different regions of the country and world.

Faculty. Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of people of color among tenured and tenured eligible faculty in the University increased from 13.8% to 16.9%. The percentage of women in the same group increased from 25.3% to 26.7% (Exhibit 4-1).26 A report on Iowa

26 Exhibit 4-1: Information on Employees by Race/Ethnicity is found in the ISU 2004-2005 Fact Book located online at: http://www.iastate.edu/%7Einst_res_info/factbk.html

48 State’s faculty and student diversity is also available online.27 As of Fall 2005, approximately

59% of Teacher Education faculty are women and 10% are persons of color.28 The percentage of people of color is slightly lower than the ratio of the entire university.

As part of documenting efforts to increase diversity in faculty, the University’s human resource system has procedures in place to encourage people of color to apply for faculty positions and to review all hires to ensure that qualified people of color are not systematically excluded from hiring considerations. These procedures give preference to equally qualified people of color.29

The affirmative action policy is presented below:

Affirmative Action Policy Iowa State University has committed itself to develop and implement affirmative action programs with respect to employment and to comply with all applicable federal, state, and Board of Regent’s rules, regulations and policies relative to nondiscrimination. While this commitment encompasses and governs employment decisions of all university employing units, it does not, however obviate the responsibilities and prerogatives of such units to develop appropriate job descriptions where warranted; to utilize existing job descriptions that have already been modified; to recruit, screen applications, interview applicants and select personnel deemed most suitable for the positions to be filled. Adherence to the procedures outlined in this section will assure compliance with the institution’s affirmative action commitments.

Neither the university nor any of its employing units is required by law to grant preferential treatment to individuals to achieve affirmative action goals. At the same time, it is incumbent upon the university to demonstrate that positive steps have been taken to recruit and employ members of those groups protected by federal regulations who are not currently adequately represented in our work force and that our selection procedures have not had an indefensible disparate effect on any particular class or individuals.30

Students. The administration, faculty, and staff are visibly committed to providing an inviting, engaging, and inclusive learning environment for all Teacher Education Program students. Table 4-1 presents summary demographic data on the sex and racial ethnic proportions

27 President’s Council Report is located online at: http://www.iastate.edu/~inst_res_info/PDFfiles/PCR/0105.pdf

28 See Ethnic Code on Table 3-1: Teacher Education Tenure-Track Faculty as of Fall 2005, p.42.

29The Human Resource Hiring Procedures is located online at: http://www.hrs.iastate.edu/r&e/faculty_recruitment.shtml

30The Non-discrimination and Affirmative Action Policy Statement is located online at http://www.hrs.iastate.edu/AAO/reaffirmation.pdf

49 of Iowa State students. Females have made up about 44-45% of the student body from 1999-

2004. People of color increased from 6.9% to 8.4%. Table 4-2 presents demographic data on teacher education programs for which there are available university records. Students in most secondary majors are not separately designated as teacher preparation students (e.g. English,

Music, Foreign Language, Science Education, Mathematics Education, Physical Education) but are simply designated as majors in that subject matter. Table 4-2 indicates that the percentage of females in these majors remained about the same (~85%) between Fall, 1999 and Fall, 2004).

The percentage of students of color in these majors increased from about 2.8% in Fall 1999 to

3.8% in Fall 2004.31

As of September 2004, a total of 19 students of color were admitted to the Teacher

Education Program.32 The gender mix for the Teacher Education Program changed slightly between Fall 1999 and Fall 2003, with the male student population growing from 37.1 to 38.8 percent. The former College of Education as well as the leaders of the Teacher Education

Program have committed resources and personnel to ensure the aggressive recruitment, retention, and graduation of students of color. The number of scholarships designated for students of color has grown to five annual $1,500 awards for freshmen and incoming transfer students and five annual renewable awards of $1,000 for continuing students. The number of scholarships for studying abroad has also increased in the last three years. Twenty scholarships of $500 for

31 Note: the impact of the George Washington Carver program, discussed below, is not reflected in these data. When students in that program are counted, the percentage of students of colors will rise to slightly above 5%.

32 Students are admitted to teacher education generally as juniors; data for admitted students do not reflect most freshman and sophomore students included in Table 4-2.

50 Table 4-1: Number and Percentage of Iowa Students by Sex and Racial/Ethnic Background – 1999-2004 People of Color % Total % African- People Undergraduates Total Male Female Female Indian* American Asian* Hispanic Total of Color

2004 21354 11983 9371 43.9 68 594 687 445 1794 8.4 2003 22230 12477 9753 43.9 66 601 661 476 1804 8.1 2002 23399 12948 10451 44.7 73 641 633 441 1788 7.6 2001 23460 12969 10491 44.7 71 605 602 424 1702 7.3 2000 22481 12391 10090 44.9 80 548 553 364 1545 6.9 1999 21901 12037 9864 45.0 80 579 544 303 1506 6.9

*Indian = American Indian or Alaskan Native *Asian = Asian or Pacific Islander

51 Table 4-2: Number and Percent of Students by Sex, Racial/Ethnic Background, and Residency, 1999-2004 for Students in Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Agricultural Education, and Family and Consumer Science Education People Sex of Color* - n t * a n * c l i e r t a d f f i n n s o A e o

e e i d n e l t t i l r c R a a i a

s o * n p c e l e n n n * i e l m o n - r o a l r o n a e e d a - e r e i i a l p a C e F N P n t s i s m

a d t i m s e o o e n Major* n T M F I A A H R N I % % % Fall 2004 Early Childhood Educ- E* 150 4 146 4 2 1 133 17 1 97.3 11.3 4.7 Elementary Education 617 108 509 2 4 10 8 545 72 1 82.5 11.7 3.9 Early Childhood Educ- F* 66 1 65 1 59 7 98.5 10.6 1.5 Agricultural Education 88 34 54 1 1 1 82 6 61.4 6.8 3.4 Family & Consumer Sciences Education 67 2 65 3 62 5 97.0 7.5 4.5 Total 2004 988 149 839 2 10 13 13 881 107 2 84.9 10.8 3.8 Fall 2003 Early Childhood Educ- E* 161 3 158 1 4 1 142 19 1 98.1 11.8 3.7 Elementary Education 699 118 581 1 8 11 8 621 78 83.1 11.2 4.0 Early Childhood Educ- F* 78 1 77 1 75 3 98.7 3.8 1.3 Agricultural Education 106 46 60 100 6 56.6 5.7 0.0 Family & Consumer Sciences Education 69 2 67 1 64 5 97.1 7.2 1.4 Total 2003 1113 170 943 1 10 15 10 1002 111 1 84.7 10.0 3.2 Fall 2002 Early Childhood Educ.- E 166 4 162 1 2 1 153 13 1 97.6 7.8 2.4 Elementary Education 767 114 653 2 14 13 12 675 92 2 85.1 12.0 5.3 Early Childhood Educ-F 84 1 83 1 77 7 98.8 8.3 1.2 Agricultural Education 122 47 75 1 117 5 61.5 4.1 0.8

52 Family & Consumer Sciences Education 57 4 53 1 53 4 1 93.0 7.0 1.8 Total 2002 1196 170 1026 2 16 15 15 1075 121 4 85.8 10.1 4.0 Fall 2001 Early Childhood Educ-E 137 2 135 1 1 2 128 9 98.5 6.6 2.9 Elementary Education 792 106 686 1 15 9 8 695 97 1 86.6 12.2 4.2 Early Childhood Educ-F 97 1 96 3 89 8 99.0 8.2 3.1 Agricultural Education 155 74 81 2 143 12 52.3 7.7 1.3 Family & Consumer Sciences Education 49 1 48 1 1 47 2 98.0 4.1 4.1 - n t * a n c * i l e r t a d f i f n n s o A e o

e e i n d l e t t i l r c R a a i a

s o * n p c e l e n n n i * l e m o n - r o l r a o a n e e d a - e r e i a i l p a C e N F P n t s i m s

a d t i m s e o o e n n

Major* T M F I A A H R N I % % % Total 2001 1230 184 1046 2 19 10 13 1102 128 1 85.0 10.4 3.6 Fall 2000 Early Childhood Educ-E 132 5 127 1 2 1 117 15 1 96.2 11.4 3.0 Elementary Education 745 106 639 1 15 6 3 655 90 1 85.8 12.1 3.4 Early Childhood Educ-F 83 1 82 1 78 5 98.8 6.0 1.2 Agricultural Education 152 78 74 1 1 140 12 48.7 7.9 1.3 Family & Consumer Sciences Education 50 1 49 1 1 48 2 98.0 4.0 4.0 Total 2000 1162 191 971 3 18 8 5 1038 124 2 83.6 10.7 2.9 Fall 1999 Early Childhood Educ-E 116 3 113 1 1 2 2 102 14 2 97.4 12.1 5.2 Elementary Education 727 115 612 14 3 2 638 89 1 84.2 12.2 2.6 Early Childhood Educ-F 86 4 82 2 1 80 6 95.3 7.0 3.5 Agricultural Education 131 67 64 1 123 8 48.9 6.1 0.8 Family & Consumer Sciences Education 48 1 47 1 1 47 1 97.9 2.1 4.2 Total 1999 1108 190 918 3 18 6 4 990 118 3 82.9 10.6 2.8

Total 1999-2004 6797 1054 5743 13 91 67 60 6088 709 13 84.5 10.4 3.4 *Indian = American Indian or Alaskan Native

53 *Asian = Asian or Pacific Islander *To give credit to each college majors in ECE were designated and ECE-Educ or ECE-FCS. However the program was the same *These majors are separately designated in University records. Teacher education students in other programs are not identified separately from other majors in that subject matter area in University records (e.g. teacher education students in biology are not separated from other biology majors.)

54 students who complete an international study abroad or international student teaching experience are awarded annually by the Maxine and Dennis Brown Scholarship. Undergraduate teacher education majors are also eligible to receive two $1,000 First Citizens National Bank

Opportunity Scholarships to support an international experience. The Future Faculty Fellows

Program continues to target promising young scholars who aspire to be collegiate faculty members. The funds for this program have been transferred from the college to individual academic departments.

The University Teacher Education Program (UTEP) works to recruit, retain, and recommend for licensure students from underrepresented populations. The Minority Liaison

Officers (MLO) in each college generally lead these efforts. Examples of these efforts would include such activities as visiting local and regional high schools with university recruiters, working with the Multicultural Student Affairs Office, or meeting with students both in groups and individually to help them plan a strategy for success. The MLO in the former College of

Education traveled in Spring 2005 to Pacific Rim countries to recruit students.

Initiatives. In 2002, for another example, the former College of Education hired an

Assistant Dean for Student and Minority Affairs. This position was responsible, in part, to work closely with leaders in the University Teacher Education Program. Additional responsibilities associated with the position were monitoring, recruitment, retention and graduation of students of color, many of whom are in the licensure areas.

During the summer of 2003, the College hosted a summer program for minority students who were entering their sophomore year in high school. Students spent a week on campus learning about college life and about the former College of Education in particular. The intent of

55 this program was to impress upon the students that higher education is an option for them after high school and that the former College of Education and Iowa State University offer a wide variety of career opportunities.

During the summer of 2004, the College joined with College Bound, Science Bound,

TRIO Educational Talent Search, the Office of Admissions, and the Department of Residence to host the Early Outreach Program (EOP) for approximately 120 high school students. EOP is a one-week academic program designed to recruit students from underrepresented groups into the

College and to consider teaching careers. The MLO, faculty and staff have committed considerable time, and the College has contributed funds in support of the program.

George Washington Carver Teacher Education Program (GWCTEP)

The number of students of color in the state has steadily increased over the past ten years while the number of teachers of color has remained virtually stagnant. The former College of

Education leadership in collaboration with the UTEP leadership felt the need to work to rectify this scenario and began discussions with administrators from Simpson College, a private liberal arts college, and Des Moines Area Community College (DMACC) about the feasibility of partnering to deliver a teacher education program in Des Moines. From these discussions came the George Washington Carver Teacher Education Program, a program designed to increase the number of teachers of color in central Iowa B-12 schools. This program aims to assist working adults, specifically those from underrepresented groups, to obtain baccalaureate degrees and teaching licenses. It is a cohort program offered in downtown Des Moines to provide convenient participant access.

Directing the GWCTEP constituted one-half of the job responsibilities of the Assistant

Dean for Student and Minority Affairs. When the assistant dean accepted a promotion and new

56 position, those responsibilities were assumed by the chair of the Department of Curriculum and

Instruction, the department that offers the Professional Core classes for licensure.

The first GWCTEP student cohort began college class work in November of 2003. The

program met its target of 34 students accepted for the first cohort, with 27 enrolled in the first

term, and has successfully controlled attrition in the second term, with 20 students starting the

second year (Exhibit 4-2).33 Participants have been recruited for their leadership abilities,

commitment to teaching, and flexibility in current work assignments to enable participation in

day field experiences required for teaching licensure. Students participate in a course schedule

of two nights a week for ten weeks, making rapid progress toward the joint degree, while

working full-time. The GWCTEP is on track to produce a more multicultural teacher workforce.

The demographic profile of the accepted students in the 1st pilot cohort is illustrated in

Table 4-3.

Table 4-3: Demographic Profile of George Washington Carver Teacher Education Students Gender: Ethnic origin: Age:  Female 76%  African-American 67%  37 is the mean

 Male 24%  Asian-American 3%  35 is the median.

 Caucasian 18%  The youngest is 18

 Hispanic 9%  The most senior is 55

 Native American 3%

In financial terms, the University’s commitment to the Carver program averages about $90,000-

$100,000 per year. Similarly, the financial commitment to the Minority Liaison and

International positions in the College of Human Sciences also represent major commitments to

33 Exhibit 4-2: George Washington Carver Teacher Education Students is located in the Exhibit Room.

57 diversity in teacher preparation. To these commitments are added financial commitments to a wide range of University programs (e.g. Dialogues on Diversity, the Graduate Minority

Assistantship Program, Study-Abroad Programs), demonstrating that the University makes a strong financial commitment to diversity.

79.11(3). Unit efforts in increasing or maintaining diversity shall be reflected in plans, monitoring of plans and efforts, and results.

The University’s Strategic Plan in effect from 2000-2005 emphasized diversity.34

Inclusiveness was emphasized as a core value:

Inclusiveness: As a land-grant university, we are committed to the principles of equal access and opportunity. We constantly challenge ourselves to be proactive in protecting and advancing the interests of diverse populations and cultures, disenfranchised populations, and in breaking the barriers due to gender, race, physical abilities, economic level, and social status. We are committed to going outside our traditional constituent populations, to make higher education at Iowa State financially affordable, and geographically accessible.

Goal 1 of that plan emphasized multicultural appreciation and awareness (emphasis added in bold):

Goal 1: Enhance learning through exceptional learner-centered teaching, services, and enrichment opportunities. The predominant characteristics of this goal will be:

 Enhanced liberal education - to ensure that all undergraduate students develop literacy in science and technology; environmental awareness; communication skills; information research and analytical skills; humane and ethical values; knowledge of the intellectual, historic, and artistic foundations of our culture; understanding of individual and social behavior; and multicultural and international awareness and appreciation

The second and third Strategies for Learning in that plan were:

34 The University’s Strategic Plan for 2000-2005: http://www.iastate.edu/~president/plan/2005/

58  Continue to increase student, faculty, and staff diversity with due attention to underrepresented populations  Enhance student recruitment at both undergraduate and graduate levels to reach annual enrollment targets; to attract high achieving students; to provide access and opportunities to those qualified but disadvantaged; and to maintain balance among residents and nonresidents, including international students

Performance indicators in the plan included assessment of student and faculty diversity:

 Enrollment: undergraduate, graduate; science and technology disciplines; diversity; resident and non-resident; distance education enrollment; non-credit continuing education enrollment; level of student financial need met by aid  Retention, graduation, and career placement rates (including further education): undergraduate, graduate; diversity; resident and non-resident; science and technology disciplines; success in professional certification; national competitiveness  Faculty/staff characteristics and competitiveness: composition, diversity, compensation, national and international recognition through academy and professional society memberships, scholarly publications, citations, awards

The 2005-2010 Strategic Plan35 continues this tradition of emphasizing diversity. Increasing diversity is identified as a component of Iowa State’s Mission (emphasis added in bold):

Create, share, and apply knowledge to make Iowa and the world a better place.  Create knowledge through world-class scholarship in teaching, research, and creative endeavors.  Share knowledge through outstanding undergraduate, graduate, professional, and outreach programs.  Apply knowledge to improve the quality of life for current and future generations.

In carrying out its mission, Iowa State will increase and support diversity in the university community. Diversity enlivens the exchange of ideas, broadens scholarship, and prepares students for lifelong, productive participation in society

The plan’s University Life priority includes the following goal:

Priority: University Life

Ensure that the university is a great place to learn and work.

35 The University’s Strategic Plan for 2005-2010 is located online at: http://www.iastate.edu/~strategicplan/2010/process/drafts/111704.shtml

59 Goal  Expand the diversity of people, ideas, and cultures, and nurture an environment in which diversity can thrive.

Each of Iowa State’s colleges included diversity goals in their strategic plans.

Specifically, the former College of Education, employing the greatest number of teacher education faculty focused on diversity in its mission statement and goals. In its mission statement in 2002-2007,36 the former College of Education identified diversity in its first statement

(emphasis added in bold):

The mission of the College of Education is to optimize human potential and performance within a pluralistic and global society. To achieve this mission requires the study, practice, and integration of learning, teaching, discovery, and engagement with practitioners in the field. In these ways, the College of Education prepares exemplary professionals for leadership roles in education, health promotion institutions, business and industry, and other human development agencies. The College seeks to ensure excellence in its services and programs and to develop selective areas for national and international prominence.

Objectives and strategies within the 2002-2007 Strategic Plan included:

Objective 5.4 Increase the diversity of faculty, staff, administration, and students. Strategy 5.4.1 Increase efforts to recruit and retain a diverse faculty and staff. Strategy 5.4.2 Increase efforts to recruit and retain a diverse student body.

Consistent with these strategies and although there are fluctuations from year to year, 50 percent of all new tenure track hires in the University Teacher Education Program faculty have been women or members of other under-represented groups as shown in Table 4-4. In order to ensure the success of hired faculty, mentors are assigned to each new faculty member who is hired on a tenure-track appointment at the assistant professor level. Each individual who is hired

36 The former College of Education’s Strategic Plan for 2002-2007 is located online at: http://old.educ.iastate.edu/overview/5yr-plan/

60 has been reviewed carefully to assure his/her promise for achieving tenure in six years–as well as to be sure he/she will experience a nourishing environment in a Research I, land-grant institution.

Table 4-4: Gender and Ethnic/Racial Background of Tenure Track Teacher Education Hires 1999-2005 Department Sex Ethnic Background Hire 1 CI M White Hire 2 CI F White Hire 3 CI M White Hire 4 CI` F White Hire 5 CI F White Hire 6 CI F Asian Hire 7 CI M White Hire 8 CI F White Hire 9 CI F White Hire 10 CI F White Hire 11 CI M White Hire 12 CI M White Hire 13 CI F White Hire 14 CI F White Hire 15 CI F White Hire 16 AESHM F Black Hire 17 AGEDST M Black Hire 18 HDFS M White Hire 19 HDFS F White Hire 20 HDFS F White Hire 21 Music M White The AACTE ethnic categories are: CI -- Curriculum and Instruction Indian -- American Indian or Alaskan Native AESHM -- Apparel, Educational Studies, Asian -- Asian or Pacific Islander and Hospitality Management Black -- Black, non-Hispanic AGEDST -- Agricultural Education and Hispanic -- Hispanic Studies White -- White, non-Hispanic HDFS -- Human Development and Family Unreported -- Race/Ethnicity Unreported Studies

61 The UTEP has also striven to increase the diversity goals represented in this objective:

 Increase graduate enrollment from under-represented groups to 15 percent within five years . Over the previous five years, the proportion of students of color enrolled in the former

College of Education had increased from 5.3 to 6.8 percent (Exhibit 4-3).37 For Teacher

Education, the percentage has risen from 2.2% in Fall 2000 to 2.7% in Fall 2004 (Exhibit 4-4).38

This improvement is encouraging, and the program will continue with its efforts to reach at least

8 percent. The program understands that it must strongly encourage current faculty members to increase efforts of recruitment. Recognition programs for faculty excellence in recruiting/mentoring students of color are being considered among other possible steps.

Recently, a team of educators and researchers committed to social justice teaching and research have revitalized a collaborative team entitled, Advancing Social and Educational Equality through Research and Technology (SEE). SEE is an initiative that seeks to engage faculty in the

Department of Curriculum and Instruction and graduate students in a collaborative research and teaching agenda to examine broad issues of equity in our society and a place that is conducive to graduate student mentoring and collegial support.

Strategy 5.5.1: Through the College of Education’s Director of International Programs,

advance multiculturalism, globalization, and diversity within the College of Education.

 By Fall 2002, students will have the opportunity to complete student teaching on every continent in the world. (except Antarctica)

37 Exhibit 4-3: Minority Enrollment Summary in the Colleges of Education and Family and Consumer Sciences by Ethnicity and Gender, Fall 1999-Summer 2005 is provided by the ISU Office of Registrar and is located in the Exhibit Room

38 Exhibit 4-4: Teacher Education Enrollment Summary by Ethnicity and Gender is provided by the ISU Office of Registrar is located in the Exhibit Room

62  Within five years, 20 percent of College of Education graduates will have significant international experience before they graduate.  At least 80 percent of College of Education faculty members will have been involved in an international presentation or project during any five-year period.

One major way that provides international opportunities for teacher education students is the International Student Teaching Program operated by the Office of Field Experience. Table

4-5 lists the number of students who have participated in this program for the last five years.

The goals of the program are to have students learn about a different culture, to experience teaching students from a different culture, and to incorporate international experience and knowledge in their future teaching. Current and recent sites include Scotland,39 Rome, Czech

Republic, New Zealand, Australia, Puerto Rico, Norway. New sites include Spain and England.

Students who participate in this program teach 8 weeks in an American setting and 8 weeks at the International site. Typically, students teaching in a public or private school at the site in which the language of instruction is English. These schools can include typical government schools (e.g. in Scotland, New Zealand, Australia) or international American schools (e.g.

Rome). Also, before 9/11, the College came very close to achieving the 20 percent goal for students participating in significant international experiences.) After 9/11, though, the rate understandably dropped; however, it has been rising gradually since. Although many faculty members have participated in international activities over the past five years, the College still aspires to an 80 percent participation rate.

Currently planning is underway to offer two related teaching methods courses, Art

Education 211 (Introduction to Art Education) and Music 265 (Music in Elementary Education) as an international summer experience in Rome. This plan would utilize facilities from the

39 Scotland is no longer an active site.

63 Rome student teaching site and also the College of Design’s Rome education site and increase our students experience in globally diverse settings.

The Dean’s Leadership Seminar in Australia is a two-week summer program conducted in cooperation with Monash University and the Australian Institute of Management in Sydney

(Exhibit 4-5).40 The seminar includes a number of excursions and field experiences to foster leadership strategies and the effective use of leadership skills in the multicultural setting.

Table 4-5: Number of Iowa State Students Participating in International Student Teaching Since Academic Year 2000-2005

Sites l e c e a a o y d d d n i l i a i r c l a l e n n t n h i m o a a b u a c a o a w o p l l l p z R r e u r

t a T e t g a S R z p o o o s g n e n t e e c C n u N r Z i E S V

R e A S u w e P N 2000- 3 6 3 7 5 7 1 32 2001 2001- 5 1 3 5 3 3 20 2002 2002- 7 3 7 5 2 3 27 2003 2003- 5 3 2 7 3 2 3 24 2004 2004- 8 4 8 2 4 5 1 32 2005 Fall 4 4 4 4 16 20051

Totals 31 13 12 38 22 8 14 7 1 4 1 151 Based on students accepted for participation.

In an effort to help students develop their own personal approaches to leadership, in collaboration with other young Australian leaders, Dr. Walter Gmelch implemented this

40 Exhibit 4-5: The Dean’s Leadership Seminar in Australia Brochure is located in the Exhibit Room.

64 leadership venture in May of 2001, leading a group of 12 students on this multicultural learning experience. Since then, 58 students have participated, with an expected group of 13 students to travel abroad during Summer 2005 (see Table 4-6).

The Dean’s International Leadership Seminar, the Global Citizenship Seminar in

Salzburg, Austria, enables students to collaborate with over 100 speakers, consultants, and faculty throughout Europe (Exhibit 4-6).41 The emphasis on the program is on allowing students

Table 4-6: Dean’s Leadership Seminar, Participation by Academic Year Number of Number of students from students outside Total College of of College of Education Education Summer 2001 8 4 12 Summer 2002 14 2 16 Summer 2003 13 4 17 Summer 2004 7 6 13 Provided by Susan C. Posch, Study Abroad Center, Iowa State University to view the U.S. from a non-American perspective and on understanding how others view the

U.S. The seminar gives students an opportunity to attend classes in Schloss Leopoldskron, visit cultural sites in and around Salzburg, and take excursions to places like Vienna to experience

Hapsburg history. During winter break in 2004, four faculty and 23 students participated in this seminar.

Strategy 5.6.1: Encourage faculty and students returning from international experiences to utilize what they gained in courses and learning communities in the University and beyond.

41 Exhibit 4-6: The Dean’s International Leadership Seminar, the Global Citizenship Seminar in Salzburg, Austria Brochure is located in the Exhibit Room.

65 Strategy 5.6.2: Work with the College of Education’s Director of International Programs to increase the number of international faculty members, staff, and students who visit the campus and participate in exchange arrangements and/or enroll in courses.

 Increase the number of international students (undergraduate and graduate) enrolled in College of Education courses by 5 percent over the next five years.  Increase the number of international faculty members, staff, and students visiting ISU by 10 percent over the next five years.  Increase the number of international scholars visiting the College of Education and its departments by 10 percent over the next five years. (Table 4-7)  Increase the number of courses that include an inter-cultural theme by 100 percent.

The College’s Coordinator of International Programs, actively promotes each of these initiatives among faculty and staff. Jointly, with the college administration, the Coordinator develops and provides conditions for implementation of a college-wide strategic plan for internationalization. He also keeps track of the College’s progress in attaining them. Some of his duties include securing academic international grants to generate opportunities abroad for faculty and students, supervising international program, and developing partnerships with foreign institutions and international funding agencies.

The Department of Curriculum and Instruction has had and continues an active program of visiting scholars. Table 4-7 includes the number of international visiting scholars for the last four years.

66 Table 4-7: Visiting Scholars in Teacher Education Departments, Academic Years 2002-2006

Scholar Country of Dates Origin Department of Curriculum and Instruction (CI) China 2004-2005

Meilin Yao SeKyung Jeon Korea 2002-2003 Fen-tzu Chou Taiwan 2005-2006 CI & Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching (CTLT) Avril Loveless England 2001 Sheley Chi Wa Young Taiwan 2003-2004 Mi Ok Cho Korea March 2003 - Present Bridget Somekh England 2004 CI & CTLT International Leadership in Educational Technology Project Eva Blomstrom Denmark 2002 Kristine Ellis Denmark 2002 John Fraser England 2003-2004 Olatz Lopez Spain 2003 Tom Nyvang Denmark 2003 Paul Warnes England 2004 Christina Preston England 2005 Janeen Smith Jorgensen Denmark 2002 & 2004 Elsebeth Sorensen Denmark 2001 & 2003 Margaret Leachy (planned) Ireland 2005 Adam Unwin (planned) England 2005 Fitri Mohamad (planned) Malaysia & 2006 England Department of Apparel, Educational Studies, and Hospitality Management Leah Kagima United Arab Summer 2003 Emirates Linda Peterat Canada Summer 2004/2005 Sidiga Washi Sudan Summer 2005 Department of Agricultural Education and Studies Peter Scott Scotland Fall 2004 Barbara-Ann Innes Scotland Fall 2004 Will Allen New Zealand Spring 2002 Will Allen New Zealand Fall 2003 Richard A. Bawden Australia Spring 2004 Department of Foreign Language and Literature Gulayim Ashakeeva Kyrgystan 2003-2004 Olena Grytsay Ukraine 2003-2004 Mariya Shymchyshyn Ukraine 2003-2004 Natalia Kabanova Russia 2004-2005 Zorana Misic Serbia 2004-2005 Ilham Huseynov Azerbaijan 2004-2005 Svetlana Dubrovina Kazakstan 2004-2005 Alexei Konobeev Russia 2004-2005 Hani Abbas Al-Balushi Oman 2005-2006 67 International Leadership in Educational Technology

Dr. Niki Davis has developed the International Leadership in Educational Technology

(ILET) program which has provided numerous visiting scholars.42 Distance learning technologies provide access to vocational and higher education. A necessary component for effective international distance education is sensitivity to diversity of culture and language. Teachers need pedagogical support to develop strategies appropriate to intercultural learning. The ILET project engages experts in multimedia and pedagogy to address this issue. It creates innovative multidisciplinary open and distance learning and resources for study abroad that reinforce knowledge about Europe and the US among distance educators. Professional and private organizations partner to promote the diffusion of Intercultural Educational Technology into programs that prepare technology using teacher educators and technology services for faculty across Europe and the US. The project broadens the impact of the EC and US cooperation by training the trainers of faculty involved in open and distance learning. ILET creates a consortium of six leading universities to explore effective distance education, promote international visitation and collaboration of faculty and students.

In a program funded by the U. S. Department of State for the last four year, Turkish teacher education students have been brought to the United States for a placement in U.S. schools. The goals of the program are to involve Turkish students in U. S. education approaches and to increase their knowledge of effective uses of technology. An important aspect of the program is that the Turkish students conduct a poster night in which they highlight projects they have done and also share aspects of Turkey and its culture (e.g. food, dance, artifacts, and

42 International Leadership in Educational Technology website: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ilet/

68 information of locations in Turkey). ISU teacher education students and faculty participate and learn more about Turkey.

79.11(4). The institution and unit shall maintain a climate that supports diversity in general as well as supporting practitioner candidates and faculty from underrepresented groups on campus.

General Support of Diversity: Traditionally, ISU’s diversity efforts have focused mainly on recruiting and retaining students, staff, and faculty of color. There has been slow progress.

The total percentage of students of color on campus has increased from 6.7 to 7.8 from 2000 to

2004 (Exhibit 4-1)43 Among current University Teacher Education faculty, the percentage of faculty of color has increased from 12 to 15.1, with increases mainly among faculty who are

Asian or Pacific Islander (Exhibit 4-1).44

More recently, however, the university community has expanded its discussion and practice regarding diversity beyond simple counting. The notion of diversity has become broader, more inclusive, and more complex. This is reflected to some degree in the definition of diversity recently drafted by the new President’s Advisory Committee on Diversity:

ISU defines diversity as that quality of its physical, social, cultural and intellectual environment that embraces the rich differences within the multiplicity of human expression and characteristics including age, culture, ethnicity, gender identification and presentation, language and linguistic ability, physical ability and quality, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.

Since his arrival in Ames, ISU President Geoffroy has maintained that diversity is one of the single most important issues he will address each year. The creation of the President’s

Advisory Committee on Diversity (PACD) is one tangible result of this commitment, and the

43 Exhibit 4-1: The ISU Fact Book 2004-2005 (p. 41) is located in the Exhibit Room and online at http://www.iastate.edu/%7Einst_res_info/factbk.html

44 Exhibit 4-1: The ISU Fact Book 2004-2005 (p. 71) is located in the Exhibit Room and online at http://www.iastate.edu/%7Einst_res_info/factbk.html

69 former College of Education dean co-chaired this committee during the 2002-2004 academic year. Since Spring 2003, the PACD has sponsored a series of well-attended Friday lunch conversations with the President on diversity topics. These conversations have helped expand campus notions of diversity beyond mere counting to substantial issues about climate, the meaning of oppression, and the nature of deep social support for diversity.45 UTEP faculty and staff have played a major role in these conversations by leading discussions about diversity and social justice as well as participating in the conversations in large numbers.

During the 2003-04 academic year, PACD sponsored a comprehensive campus climate survey on diversity at ISU – with diversity defined quite broadly and inclusively. As a result of the survey, a comprehensive, long-term plan for stimulating and supporting campus diversity will be generated, approved by the campus, and implemented within two years.46

The University theme for the 2003-04 academic year was “Brown v. Board of Education:

Opening Doors, Opening Minds.” The University sponsored a variety of events and speakers in commemoration of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision.47 The former College of Education and UTEP co-sponsored a speaker in conjunction with the Iowa

State Conference on Race and Ethnicity as part of the year-long commemoration. In an effort to involve the community, the College and UTEP also sponsored an essay-writing contest for area middle, junior high and high school students. Monetary awards were given to the first, second, third and honorable mention winners at each level.48

45 Notes from two of these Friday conversation sessions can be found at: http://www.iastate.edu/Inside/2003/0131/diversity.shtml

46 The PACD web site, which contains meeting minutes: http://www.hrs.iastate.edu/AAO/eod/pacd.shtml

47 The August 20, 2003 News Release located online: http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/releases/2003/aug/brownvboe.shtml

48 See the March 4, 2004 News Release located online at: http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/releases/2004/mar/essay.shtml

70 Two Provost-level task forces have tackled such issues as the meaningful recruitment and retention of diverse faculty and assuring that female faculty are well represented in ISU’s administrative ranks. Both task forces generated reports along with specific strategies for change.

In other action, the Safe Zones Project has resulted in thousands of pink triangle “safe zones” stickers being displayed on office and dorm doors all over campus – a visible sign that persons in those spaces support the rights of LGBT persons and their allies. Many of these stickers are visible around the UTEP faculty and staff offices. Additional resources to support faculty, staff, and student diversity are provided by a wide range of campus organizations, programs, committees, and offices such as:

 Asian Pacific American Awareness Coalition  Black Student Alliance  Chinese Students and Scholars Friendship Association  Dialogues on Diversity  Hispanic Heritage Month Committee  Indian Students Association  Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Ally Alliance (LGBTAA)  Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Student Services  Minority Student Affairs  Office of Equal Opportunity & Diversity  University Committee on Disabilities  University Committee on Women

The complete list of such groups and/or services is much more extensive. This list offers some indication of the range of services available.

The university seeks to assure student exposure to diversity and international perspectives. One of Iowa State University's goals is to prepare its students to meet the challenges of responsible citizenship and to assure successful professional roles in a culturally diverse global community. To help achieve this goal, all undergraduate students must fulfill graduation requirements in two areas: U.S. Diversity and International Perspectives by earning at

71 least six credits from a list of approved courses. 49 University Teacher Education Program students satisfy this requirement by enrolling in C I 406/506, Multicultural and Gender-Fair

Education, and one of the courses approved for international perspectives.

The university hosts hundreds of events and speakers annually to enrich diversity and international perspectives campus-wide.50 These experiences are often supported through course attendance related to teacher education assignments, as indicated in some of the program faculty’s syllabi.

Support for Practitioner Candidates of Color: The Assistant Dean for Student and

Minority Affairs, the Colleges, and the UTEP, have depended upon the vision and energy of the

Minority Liaison Officers (MLO). The MLOs provide significant leadership in the development, implementation and coordination of educational, cultural and social activities for students of color enrolled in the UTEP. Through the MLO offices, programs are coordinated with students, faculty, and staff to assist the Colleges in their efforts to increase minority student persistence and graduation rates. Among these programs are:

 Each One Teach One: Minority undergraduate students from ISU serve as mentors to minority high school students for an entire year.  The First-Year Learning Team: First-year students benefit from peer mentoring, tutoring, career exploration, social activities, and seminars/workshops. The purpose of these teams is to help new students of color form a strong academic foundation.  Yes You Can, Yucatan: Provides the opportunity for students of color to travel and study abroad to enrich their educational experiences. The program takes students of color to Mexico during spring break to help them see the benefits of a study abroad experience.  Faculty Research Internship: Junior or senior students of color in the College of Human Sciences are assigned to a faculty member as a research assistant.

49 The U.S. Diversity/International Perspectives Guidelines and Procedures are located online at: http://www.iastate.edu/~registrar/courses/div-ip-guide.html

50 A schedule for the ISU Lectures Program is located online at: http://www.lectures.iastate.edu/homepage.php

72  Recruitment initiatives: Program staff visited high schools in Hawaii and China will be visited this spring to discuss careers in education.  Multicultural Leadership Retreat: Each spring students of color participate in a retreat to dialogue about current relevant issues.51

The MLOs track the academic progress of students of color, provide one-on-one assistance and other social supports, and work with their counterparts to serve Program students.

Conclusion

The mission of the University Teacher Education Program is to provide a holistic approach to educating all of its students, regardless of race, gender, religious preference, sexual orientation or economic background. To fulfill this mission necessitates expanding education beyond merely achieving academic success. It also includes having successful social and interpersonal experiences. The Program is dedicated to providing its students with academic challenges and diverse experiences that will prepare them for global citizenship, which will most likely differ sharply from Iowa citizenship.

51 General information about the Multicultural Leadership Summit is located online at: http://www.sac.iastate.edu/PowerofOne/Msummit/2004/homepage.html

73 Chapter 5: Faculty Performance and Development

Faculty Qualifications

As Table 5-1 confirms, nearly all tenure-track UTEP faculty have terminal degrees, as well as experience in B-12 classrooms, similar to their teaching areas. In addition, university faculty, defined as having a full-time appointment in a tenure-track, adjunct, lecturer, clinician or professional and scientific line, typically maintain ongoing involvement in teaching in B-12 educational settings through their collaborative teaching, research, and outreach activities. All faculty, who on a continuing basis teach methods/pedagogy courses as identified by each licensure area, complete at least 40 hours of collaborative teaching in Birth-12 classrooms during each five year cycle. Table 5-2 provides the ISU collaborative teaching policy.

The clinical faculty, some of whom have part-time appointments, have similar credentials to the tenure-track faculty, and in cases where they do not have a terminal degree, they have at least a Master’s degree and many years of classroom experience in their assigned area. All are master teachers and many also have years of administrative experience in B-12 settings.

Table 5-1 provides a summary of data on clinical faculty employed in Teacher Education.

As can be seen, each has at least a master’s degree and multiple years of experience. Vita from the clinical faculty are available in Exhibit 5-1.52

The ISU UTEP believes this synergy among tenure-track scholar/teachers and their clinical colleagues with decades of Birth-12 experience provides a rich and diverse set of experiences and knowledge for the licensure-area candidates.

52 Exhibit 5-1: Vita from Lecturers/Clinical Faculty are available in the Exhibit Room.

74 Table 5-1: Lecturers/Clinicians in Teacher Education Fall 2002-Spring 2005 Years of L Name F Name Degree Experience Department of Curriculum and Instruction Bonett Rhonda Ph.D. 29 Bullock Cathy Ph.D. 20 Cho Miok Ph.D. 15 Duea James M.A. 45 Fairchild Ellen Ph.D. 5 Fraser John Ed.D. 34 Herold Dwight Ed.D. 33 Hinders Kathy Ph.D. 24 Johnson Jill Ph.D. 10 Kerr Joyce Ed.S. 32 Kinley John M.S. 30 La Velle Virginia M.A. 22 Linduska Steve M.A. 30 Marquart Ann Ph.D. 8 Martin Kandace M.A. 32 McKevitt Brian Ph.D. 8 Millen Pamela M.S. 34 Mwangi Mumbi Ph.D. 10 Norris Elizabeth M.S. 18 Ohlund Barbara Ph.D. 15 Osmundson Marcie M.A. 47 Peterson Carol M.E. 13 Phomvisay Aiddy M.S. 9 Rahn-Blakeslee Alecia Ph.D. 7 Rankin Barbara Ph.D. 18 Roettger Doris Ph.D. 25 Rust Dallas M.S. 29 Schuck Ronald M.S. 20 Sheldon Gary Ed.D. 39 Swenson Virginia M.S. 25 Tartakov Carlie Ph.D. 42 Taylor A. Sean M.S. 7 Taylor Kay Ann Ph.D. 7 Thompson Marcia M.S. 42 Turner J. Tom Ed.S. 38 Vander Zyl Tony Ph.D. 20 Volmer Jason Ed.S. 5 Walker Rhea Ph.D. 14 Ward Susan Ph.D. 5

75 Years of L. Name F. Name Degree Experience Department of Human Development and Family Studies Colbert Karen Ph.D. 13 Chung Kueier Ph.D. 10 Krogh Jacqueline M.S. 15 Popillion Amy Ph.D. 5 Schonhorst Lori M.S. 3 Shedd Ceilia M.S. 9 Ward Susan Ph.D. 5

Department of Apparel, Educational Studies, and Hospitality Management Oxenreider Lorna M.S. 40 Trost Betty M.S. 4

Department of Health and Human Performance Guber Sharon M.A. 33 Gundlach Kathryn M.S. 27 Lipsey Holly M.S. 3

Department of English Tremmel Michelle Ph.D. 20 Schabel Elizabeth M.A. 5

76 Table 5-2: Iowa State University University Teacher Education Faculty Collaborative Teaching Experience Policy Background Information Legislation passed in 1988 requires that universities with curricula leading to teacher licensure or teaching endorsements must meet the following standard: Faculty members in professional education shall maintain an ongoing, meaningful involvement in activities in preschools, elementary, middle, or secondary schools. Activities of professional education faculty members preparing preservice teachers shall include at least 40 hours of team teaching during a period not exceeding five years in duration at the preschool, elementary, middle, or secondary school level. (Iowa Administrative Code: Chapter 79 Standards for Practitioner Preparation Programs 79.12(8))

Definitions 1. Professional Education Faculty: Faculty* who on a continuing** basis teach methods/pedagogy courses as identified by each licensure area. 2. Team Teaching: The team teaching or related learning experience is typically associated with instructional activities in birth through grade twelve educational settings that are planned, implemented and evaluated in collaboration with a certified professional in an approved school or educational setting. It is to be completed at the level and subject matter for the licensure/endorsement area of the professional education faculty member’s university responsibilities, including direct interaction with students, and/or other kinds of school-based work involving collaboration between faculty and practicing educators.

Reporting Procedures 1. The University Teacher Education Program licensure analyst maintains a list of professional educators as defined above. Each year the secretary updates the list by requesting that department chairs or coordinators of each licensure/endorsement area provide the names of individuals teaching methods courses. 2. On a yearly basis, generally by the end of September, each professional educator must file a record of her/his collaborative experiences participated in during the previous year. 3. The UTEP licensure analyst will maintain the files for each professional educator and provide the necessary documentation requested by the State Department of Education.

*Faculty – a full-time appointment as tenure line, adjunct, lecturer, clinician or professional & scientific person who is assigned teaching methods/pedagogy as part of their employment expectation.

**Continuing – an ongoing expectation over a defined period of time, part of the person’s professional responsibility statement or equivalent position description document.

77 79.12(1). Faculty shall be engaged in scholarly activities that relate to teaching, learning, or practitioner preparation.

The University Teacher Education Program faculty consists of both tenure and non- tenure track members. In addition to teaching, the tenure track faculty are responsible for having an active research agenda; non-tenure track faculty concentrate more extensively on teaching on-campus and field experience courses, and/or advising.

Tenure-Line Faculty

Tenured and tenure-track faculty are recruited nationally for their potential to make significant contributions to the advancement of their disciplines, to be outstanding educators and to contribute to the land-grant mission of the University. They are expected to be actively engaged scholars throughout their Iowa State career; most mentor graduate students, as well. In some cases, 100% of their scholarship, teaching and outreach efforts are committed to the teacher education program; in other cases, teacher education represents a portion of their overall university contributions. The active scholarly agenda of the tenure-track faculty keeps them aware of current research and theoretical issues in their fields. The vita of the tenure-track faculty provides evidence of scholarly activities related to teaching, learning, and practitioner preparation.

Tables 5-3 and 5-4 provide a summary of productivity of teacher education faculty.

Examples of Projects

78 There is a wide gamut of projects conducted by faculty. Exhibit 5-2 53 provides examples of some of the projects. Additional examples can be provided if needed and are mentioned in the faculty vita in Exhibit 5-3.54

Non-tenure Faculty

Non-tenure faculty positions are term appointments eligible for renewal based upon the quality of performance and continuing need. The non-tenure faculty may teach some of the methods classes, supervise student teachers, and actively contribute to the teacher education program’s operation and conceptual framework. Iowa State University sees the non-tenure faculty as a particular strength in our program, because they have decades of successful frontline experience.

The UTEP departments choose to recruit non-tenure faculty with B-12 experience because their experience provides increased opportunities for students to benefit from practitioners. For example, the first secondary teaching methods class, CI 426, has been taught either by a current principal, superintendent, or curriculum coordinator, all of whom are former secondary teachers. The class provides a very realistic view of current issues in teaching at the secondary level. Individuals with recent elementary-level teaching experiences frequently teach

Curriculum and Instruction classes in elementary methods. For example, the first elementary/ early childhood education teaching methods class and laboratory practicum are taught by two recently retired elementary teachers and principals. These individuals similarly bring the reality of current school experience to their students.

53 Exhibit 5-2: 2004-2005 Examples of Teacher Education Projects are located online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

54 Exhibit 5-3: Vita from Tenure-Track Faculty are located online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

79 Table 5-3:* Iowa State University Teacher Education Faculty Major and Supportive Expressions

Major Expressions Supportive Expressions Summary Tenure Ex Ex MDD MDD Ex Ex A MDD MDD Year Code Bks CB JA S V N/R Cur AW Prod Perf JA Pres EP BR Local Cur W Prod Perf 1999-2000 N 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 3 1 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 5 10 T 3 9 55 14 3 6 0 9 0 24 24 180 1 28 7 5 5 23 21 2000-2001 N 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 10 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 11 3 10 T 7 15 55 6 4 3 1 8 0 35 27 165 4 35 1 0 1 0 46 2001-2002 N 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 3 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 3 10 0 T 5 21 48 2 4 28 0 3 8 28 30 135 1 15 7 1 1 0 36 2002-2003 N 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 T 4 16 54 9 35 15 0 4 0 36 45 194 3 11 4 11 1 1 38 2003-2004 N 1 0 5 0 0 15 0 16 2 0 3 159 0 1 28 0 5 6 5 T 10 26 80 4 1 4 0 4 0 24 47 191 7 14 2 0 2 0 62 2004-2005 N 0 2 1 0 0 2 2 2 3 0 0 10 0 1 9 9 0 8 0 T 11 27 65 4 4 18 2 5 0 30 20 196 1 35 4 4 4 0 19 *Based on the data provided by Robert Bergmann, Senior Institutional Research Analyst

Bks – Books CB – Chapters in Books JA – Journal Articles S – Software V – Videotapes Ex N/R – Exhibitions – National or Regional Ex Cur – Exhibitions Curated -National or Regional AW – Award Winning Activity Local MDD Prod – Music, Drama, or Dance Productions Local MDD Perf – Music, Drama, or Dance Performances Local Pres – Paper, Panel or Poster Presentations EP – Extension Publications BR – Book Reviews

80 Table 5-4:* Iowa State University Teacher Education Faculty

Research Proposals and Awards

Number Number Number Number Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Summary Tenure of of Non- of of Non- Research Research Research Research of Federal of State of Other of Federal Non- of State Non- of Other Non- Year Code Proposals Proposals Proposals Proposals Research Research Research Research Research Research Submitted Submitted Awarded Awarded Awards Awards Awards Awards Awards Awards 1999-2000 N 0 1 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 T 35 29 25 24 $1,554,676 $1,063,927 $88,317 $0 $80,194 $217,101 2000-2001 N 1 3 0 3 $0 $0 $0 $680,444 $87,755 $0 T 39 13 26 23 $3,250,870 $79,320 $384,777 $40,000 $332,452 $315,177 2001-2002 N 0 5 1 3 $96,000 $0 $0 $0 $104,799 $0 T 36 28 28 22 $2,465,690 $168,700 $429,278 $537,815 $102,896 $215,296 2002-2003 N 5 0 3 1 $245,120 $0 $5,688 $360,000 $0 $0 T 46 38 21 29 $941,955 $81,293 $312,750 $693,935 $274,205 $471,542 2003-2004 N 1 5 1 2 $0 $0 $668 $360,000 $0 $5,919 T 56 51 25 33 $1,806,711 $623,673 $652,422 $332,615 $110,259 $299,013

*Based on the data provided by Robert Bergmann, Senior Institutional Research Analyst

*Based on the data provided by Robert Bergman, Senior Institutional Research Analyst. 79.12(2). Faculty members in professional education shall have preparation and have had experiences in situations similar to those for which the practitioner preparation students are being prepared.

All faculty members have undergraduate and/or graduate degrees in their respective subject matter areas: Agriculture, Biology, Chemistry, Early Childhood Education, Earth

Sciences, Elementary Education, English, Family and Consumer Sciences, Foreign Languages,

Health, Mathematics, Music, Physical Education, and Physics. In addition, a number of CI faculty hold terminal degrees in their respective disciplines: Educational Psychology, Math

Education, Science Education, Literacy Education, Social-historical or Philosophical

Foundations of Education, and Multicultural Education.

A significant portion of the University Teacher Education Program faculty have experience in B-12 teaching and have licenses in Iowa or another state in their subject fields

(Exhibit 5-4).55

79.12(3). Faculty members shall collaborate regularly and in significant ways with colleagues in the professional education unit and other college/university units, schools, Iowa Department of education, area education agencies, and professional associations as well as community representatives.

Most of the projects in Exhibit 5-2 involve significant collaboration with B-12 educational personnel. Since the last review, ISU faculty members have served on a variety of

State Department of Education boards and panels. For example, several ISU faculty served on the Content Network teams (e.g. Hand, Sharp, Merkley, Andre). ISU faculty have served on content area cabinets for the Ames school district, have participated in Iowa conferences such as 55 Exhibit 5-4: Selective Summary of Faculty Teaching Experience and Professional Development Activities is located online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

82 Iowa Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Iowa Educational Research Association,

Iowa Association for Career and Technical Education, Iowa Association for Health, Physical

Education, Recreation, and Dance, Iowa Association of Agricultural Educators, Iowa

Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Iowa Association of Family and Consumer

Sciences, Iowa Bandmasters Association, Iowa Bullying and Harassment Prevention Conference,

Iowa Computer Using Educators, Iowa Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Iowa Family and

Consumer Sciences Educators for Progress, Iowa Federation of the Council for Exceptional

Children, Iowa Future Farmers of America Association, Iowa Music Educators Association,

Iowa Service Alliance for Adolescents Iowa Vocational Association, and Iowa World Language

Association (IWLA). Exhibit 5-4 provides a summary based on those vita.

79.12(4). The work climate within the unit shall promote intellectual vitality, including best teaching practice, scholarship and service among faculty.

Tenure-line faculty have a portion of their assignment dedicated to scholarship and research, typically 40% in the College of Human Sciences for example, and are expected to be actively involved in their disciplines. UTEP faculty often also have large professional service responsibilities within the education community and with education policy makers.

As indicated in the Strategic Plan, ISU’s policies and work climate promote intellectual vitality. They are implemented in the annual review and promotion and tenure policies. The CI

Evaluation Rubric (Exhibit 5-5)56 and University promotion policies57 support this claim.

56 Exhibit 5-5: Curriculum and Instruction Evaluation Rubric is located online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

57 University promotion policies listed in the Faculty Handbook as Appointment Policies and Procedures, can be found online at http://www.provost.iastate.edu/faculty/handbook/current/section3.html

83 Faculty members at ISU enjoy a number of opportunities to grow professionally – with the support of the university, colleges, departments or other campus agencies. The university offers such programs as:

 Faculty Professional Development Assignments (sabbaticals)  Faculty Technology Mentoring Program  Foreign Travel Grants  Instructional Development Awards  Miller Grants for improving classroom practice or scholarship of learning  University Research Grants  Special Research Initiation Grants  New Faculty Mentoring  Wakonse Fellows (week-long retreat to focus on university-level pedagogy)  Big 12 Faculty Exchange Program  Liberal Arts and Sciences Outstanding Teaching Performance Awards

In addition, the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT)58 offers the following services and programs:

 Supports ISU’s commitment to effective teaching through seminars, workshops, consultations, grants, and other efforts to improve the instructional environment  Works with faculty and administrators in developing strategies for documenting effective teaching.  Provides faculty and administrators with awareness of and access to information about innovative instructional techniques and research about effective teaching.

Additional ongoing and ad hoc opportunities offered through the university and its respective colleges abound for faculty in UTEP. Professional enhancement programs include, but are not limited to: faculty international travel, in-depth grant writing workshops with one-on- one mentoring, small research grants, American Educational Research Association (AERA) travel grants, and summer salary support. For example, faculty have presented at: American

Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Society for Information Technology and Teacher

Education, National Association of Research on Science Teaching, National Council of Teachers

58 Center forExcellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) website: http://www.celt.iastate.edu/

84 of Mathematics, AAPHERD (American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and

Dance) National Convention, American Association for Agricultural Education, American

Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, American Choral Directors Association State

Conference, American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, American Educational

Research Association Annual Meeting, American Vocational Association Annual Meeting,

Association of Teacher Education Annual Meeting, Cultural Diversity and Language Education

Conference, Head Start National Research Conference, Human Biology Association Conference,

International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA), International Gay and Lesbian Youth

Organization Conference, International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), National

Agricultural Education Research Conference, National Art Education Association National

Conference, National Association for the Education of Young Children, National Association of

Multicultural Educators (NAME), National Association of Student Personnel Administrators

Annual Conference, National Meeting of National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

(NCTM), National Nutrition Education Conference, Society for Research in Child Development, and Society for Technology in Teacher Education (SITE). Additionally, over the past five years, a number of noted speakers, such as Howard Gardner and Clifford Stoll, have shared their expertise during campus visits. Moreover, faculty frequently share best teaching practices over brown bag lunch discussions on topics such as No Child Left Behind legislation and technology- enhanced education.

79.12(5). Policies and assignments shall allow faculty to be involved effectively in teaching, scholarship, and service.

85 Faculty members complete an annual Professional Responsibility Statement (PRS) that indicates how they will apportion their efforts, although some departments use multiyear statements. The PRS must be mutually agreed upon by the faculty member and chair. Although each faculty member’s responsibilities may vary in any given year, a typical assignment is 40% teaching (or four 3-credit courses per academic year), 40% research, and 20% institutional and professional service/engagement. Many faculty use external support to modify their proportion of responsibility in teaching or scholarship. Professional engagement/outreach for many UTEP faculty is focused upon contributions to B-12 school districts and the general education community. This assignment of responsibility across the areas provides an excellent opportunity for faculty to be involved in service, teaching, scholarship, and engagement.

79.12(6). The unit shall administer a systematic and comprehensive evaluation system and professional development activities to enhance the teaching competence and intellectual vitality of the professional education unit.

Faculty members are required to undergo an annual review, which provides them an opportunity to demonstrate their productivity and quality of work. Faculty efforts are evaluated with respect to their Position Responsibility Statement (PRS).

Individual departments or colleges create student course evaluation instruments. These are administered during the last two weeks of every semester and offer an indication of the degree to which faculty engage effectively with students. Means and standard deviations are determined for student responses for each item on the instrument. The data are compared with averages within each department. These evaluations contribute to the annual evaluation of faculty members and also play a role in promotion and tenure or in retention. Faculty members

86 also are expected to have colleagues observe and comment on their teaching. Finally, chairs typically examine syllabi and other course materials.

79.12(7). Part-time faculty, when employed, shall be identified and shall meet the requirements for appointment as a full-time faculty member or be employed to fill a need for staff to support instruction.

The procedures for appointment of part-time faculty are consistent with those for full- time appointments carrying the same position description. However, such faculty members typically do not have the same requirements for research productivity as tenured or tenure- eligible faculty. During the 2002-2003 academic year, the university shifted its policies and practices regarding “temporary” or “adjunct” faculty. The university now maintains a system of lecturers, senior lecturers, clinical faculty, and senior clinical faculty.59 With these new classifications, persons hired for these positions first must present appropriate credentials for their assigned areas. Then they are evaluated annually by chairs (or their designees). Lecturers and clinical faculty may be retained on a longer-term basis than was possible with previous classifications of adjunct or temporary instructors. Moreover, the new system allows for promotion from lecturer to senior lecturer, from clinical faculty to senior clinical faculty.

Persons in these new positions enjoy enhanced benefits, status, and continuity in their work.

This visibility has enhanced UTEP, aligning it with other clinical research programs, such as medicine, etc.

During the 2001-2002 academic year, the Faculty Senate also passed a motion providing guidelines that no more than 25% of classes be taught by non tenure-track faculty or graduate students. This provision is intended to keep the university from depending too heavily on non-

59 Faculty Senate website: http://www.facsen.iastate.edu/homepage.html

87 tenure track faculty and to provide support for departments to bring non-tenure track faculty appointments in line with the new classification system.

79.12(8). Faculty members in professional education shall maintain an ongoing, meaningful involvement in activities in preschools, elementary, middle, or secondary schools. Activities of professional education faculty members preparing preservice teachers shall include at least 40 hours of team teaching during a period not exceeding 5 years in duration at the preschool, elementary, middle, or secondary school level.

University professional educators defined as faculty members who, on a continuing basis teach methods/pedagogy courses as identified by each licensure area, are expected to maintain ongoing involvement in teaching in B-12 educational settings. The team teaching experience or related learning experience is typically associated with instructional activities in birth through grade twelve educational settings that are planned, implemented and evaluated in collaboration with a certified professional in an approved school or educational setting. It is to be completed at the level and subject matter for the licensure/endorsement area of the professional education faculty member’s university responsibilities, including direct interaction with students, and/or other kinds of school-based work involving collaboration between faculty and practicing educators. Each faculty member submits a form “Collaborative Experience Record of Activity” to the University Licensure Analyst to provide a record of team teaching activities in B-12 settings. Table 5-5 summarizes compliance with the co-teaching requirement.

88 Table 5-5: Compliance with 40 Hour Requirement Endorsement Core/Methods Start Name or Content Area Course Date Hours Completed 1999-2004 Compliant 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Abelson, Geoff Special Ed SpEd 250, 455 42 Yes Allen, Linda Quinn FLng 7-12 FLng 487 2000 10 17 3 24 Yes Andreotti, Alex ECE/El Ed/Sec Ed CI 438, 448, 497 22 18 Yes Brotherson, Mary J ECE PK-3 HDFS 456 10 10 10 10 20 Yes Caldwell, Art Ed 211,513 Barbara Art Ed K-12 514, 515/516 25 8 35 Yes Special Ed K-12 Sp Ed 330, 355, Carlson, Patricia & Grad Spec Ed 436/437, 439 16 18 46 9.5 18.5 Yes C I 347/547, 418/518, Clough, Michael El Ed K-6 & Sci 419/519 1999 11 7 22 Yes Colbert, Karen ECE PK-3 HDFS 343 1998 Yes Foegen, Anne Spec Ed K-12 Sp Ed 541 1995 42 19 26.5 Yes Fuhler, Carol El Ed K-6 CI 377, 378 1999 3 5 9 10 13 Yes Godfrey, Michael ECE PK-3 HD FS 343 250 10 Yes Kruempel, Beverly Home Ec 7-12 40 Yes Levis, John El Ed/Sec Ed Engl 518 40 Yes Luze, Gayle ECE PK-3 HD FS 345 2002 11.5 3.5 Yes Merkley, Donna El Ed K-6 CI 395 40.5 10 6 4 20 Yes Miller, Greg Ag Ed 7-12 AgEd 410 24 8 12 14 9.5 Yes Miller, Wade Ag Ed 7-12 Ag Ed 411 12 8 12 28 Yes Munsen, Sylvia Music K-12 Music 366,466 147 158 75 111 Yes Olson, Joanne El Ed K-6 CI 449, 546 1999 22 19 14 Yes Peterson, Carla ECE PK-3 HD FS 455 8 24 4 12 Yes Sp Cm 495A/B, Ringlee, Connie Sec Ed 313 258 250 250 250 250 Yes

89 Endorsement Core/Methods Start Name or Content Area Course Date Hours Completed 1999-2004 Compliant 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Yes Rosenbusch Marcia EL Ed/FLng FLng/C I 486 30.5 10 41 16.5 4.5 Schabel Frank Health 7-12 HS 275/375 17 25 8 15 14.5 2 Yes Schmidt, Denise El Ed/Sec Ed CI 378, 556 13 9 16.5 5.5 10.5 Yes Thomas, ExSp Katherine Phys Educ K-12 275,375,395,475 1998 9 16 8 9 8 Yes Tremmel, Robert Engl 7-12 Engl 392 16 9 9 3 3 Yes Vann, Roberta K-12 Engl 518 40 40 Yes

90 Chapter 6: Practitioner Preparation Clinical Practice

79.13(1). Candidates admitted to a teacher preparation program shall participate in field experiences including both observation and participation in teaching activities in a variety of school settings and totaling at least 50 hours’ duration, with at least 10 hours to occur prior to acceptance into the program and at least 40 hours after acceptance.

All students complete a minimum of 50 hours of field experiences before they commence student teaching. Many complete significantly more hours. These hours spent in schools include both observation of classes and active teaching. Every student completes ten of these hours prior to admission to the University Teacher Education Program, with at least 40 hours following admission (Table 6-1).60

CI 280L: Early Field Experience61 not only provides students with opportunities to observe and teach in schools, but the class also includes rich content and a field trip to a demographically diverse school setting. These experiences allow students to test their aptitude and desire for teaching early in their college program and before they might make a commitment to the UTEP.

Once students are admitted into the UTEP, they complete a minimum of 40 hours of observation and teaching in schools prior to their student teaching semester. This fieldwork accompanies expected coursework. Because students in some areas, such as elementary education, take a relatively large number of methods courses, most with accompanying field experiences, the total number of pre-student teaching field experience hours has ranged as high as 400 hours (for the West Des Moines cohort program, for example). All students, though, 60 More information on these courses can be found in Exhibit 1-1: Iowa State University Catalog: Undergraduate and Graduate Courses and Programs 2005-2007 is located in the Exhibit Room and online at: http://www.iastate.edu/~catalog/

61 See Exhibit 3-7 and online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

91 Table 6-1: Required Number of Hours of Pre-Admission Field Experience for Each Program Option

Licensure Area Course Comments Observation clock hours Early Childhood Education HDFS 220 or HDFS 221 10 hours

Elementary Education HDFS 226 20 hours

Agricultural Education AgEd 211 40 hours Art (discontinued) Gained in coordination with Art 10 hours of observation and teaching Ed 514 or Art Ed 515 experience in a classroom-based research site

English CI 280 A: Pre-Student Teaching 10 hours Experience

Family and Consumer Sciences FCEdS 206 25 hours Education

Foreign Language CI 280 L 10 hours

Health Education CI 280 L 10 hours Mathematics CI 280 L 10 hours

Music Music/CI 480K, Section 2 10 hours

Physical Education ExSp 280 20 hours

Secondary Science (undergrad 280 M or 468J,K 20 hours and MAT)

Secondary Social Science 280 L 10 hours

complete at least 40, regardless of their licensure area. Table 6-2 provides a listing of required minimum field experience in each of the programs post-admission and prior to student teaching.

The courses in each licensure area that require field experiences are found in Exhibit 6-1.62

Table 6-2: Required Post-Admission Field Experience Prior to Student Teaching Licensure Area Course Comments

62 Exhibit 6-1: Courses in each Licensure Area that Require Field Experiences are located online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

92 Contact field hours Agricultural Education AgEd 416 40 hours

Art (discontinued)

Early Childhood Education HDFS 340, HDFS 343, and 24 hours HDFS 455 16 hours CI 468 F, G, & I 90 hours

Elementary Education CI 468 A, B, C & D 120 hours

English Education Engl 397/CI 280A 40 hours Engl 494/CI 280A 40 hours

Family and Consumer Sciences FCEdS 403 40 hours Education

Foreign Language Education CI 280 A 40 hours

Health Education CI 280 A 40 hours

Mathematics Education CI 280 A 40 hours

Music Music/CI 480 K, Section 1 30 hours Music/CI 480 K, Section 2 10 hours

Physical Education ExSp 281, 20 hours ExSp 375 20 hours ExSp 395 40 hours

Secondary Science CI 468 J and CI 468 K 80 hours

Secondary Social Studies* CI 480 A (at least one credit 40 hours taken concurrently with CI 493) 1HDFS—Human Development and Family Studies 2CI—Curriculum and Instruction 3AgEd—Agricultural Education and Studies 4Eng—English 5FCEdS—Family and Consumer Sciences Education 6ExSp—Exercise and Sport Science

* The Secondary Social Studies program ends in May 2006

93 79.13(2). Student teaching shall be a full-time experience for a minimum of 12 consecutive weeks in duration during the student’s final year of the practitioner preparation program.

UTEP students engage in their student teaching experience during their final year in the program. Because of the rigors involved, students are required to devote full-time effort to student teaching. All student teachers are expected to fulfill the contract day of the assigned school district and to adhere to the local school calendar. Student teachers are not released for any ISU calendar events, including breaks or the annual VEISHEA celebration. This policy is clearly outlined in the Student Teaching Handbook (Exhibit 6-2).63 Table 6-3 summarizes the student teaching placements for program options. As can be seen, all students complete a minimum 12 week placement.

Teacher education areas with dual or multiple assignments provide an opportunity to place students in a variety of settings. The Field Experiences Office makes every effort to place students in rural, urban and/or suburban settings. Elementary education students are placed in an early elementary setting for one assignment and an upper elementary setting for the second. The two sessions allow the flexibility of meeting students’ endorsement, content or specialization requests. In every case, the Field Experiences staff strives to place students in settings with as much demographic, socioeconomic and cultural diversity as possible. This is an ongoing challenge in the middle of a relatively homogeneous state, but it is a priority. The Field

Experiences staff has developed excellent opportunities to assure students of truly diverse settings for student teaching. First, students may choose to complete one of their student teaching assignments in Des Moines; Marshalltown; Perry; Houston, TX; Omaha, NE, or other similar

63 Exhibit 6-2: Student Teaching Handbook is located in the Exhibit Room and online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

94 Table 6-3: Summary of Student Teaching Placements for the Various Teaching Major Options Teaching Major Placement summary Total wks Elementary Education Two eight week placements, K-3, 4-6 16 Early Childhood Education Two eight week placements, B-PreK, K-3, one placement must 16 have students with IEPs. MAT in Science Education (all Two placements totaling 14 weeks. 2-week observation 14 science majors) placement in student teaching classroom, 12-week student teaching placement (7-12). Science Education (undergrad – all One 12 week placement (7-12) 12 science majors) Mathematics Education One 12 week placement (7-12) 12 English Education One 16 week placement (7-12) 16 Family and Consumer Sciences Two eight week placements, middle school, high school 16 Education Physical Education Two eight week placements, K-6, 7-12 16 Music Education Two eight week placements, K-6, 7-12 16 Agricultural Education One 12 week placement (7-12) 12 Health Education One 12 week placement (7-12) 12 Social Studies Education One 12 week placement (7-12) 12 Foreign Language Education One 12 week placement (7-12) (unless students also complete 12 an elementary endorsement in which case they complete an elementary placement in addition)

areas with diverse populations. Second, they may apply and interview to go abroad for their

second student teaching assignment. Selection of students for international placement is

competitive; typically only students with strong GPAs, strong practicum placement performance,

and the ability to perform well in a challenging interview are selected. International placement

settings include: Australia, the Czech Republic, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Puerto Rico,

Scotland, and Spain. In most settings English is the primary language. In two settings, Norway

and the Czech Republic, English is taught in the schools beginning in 1st (Norway) or 4th (Czech

Republic) grade; our students may teach both in their own content area and teach English. The

site in Caceres, Spain offers the only location where our Spanish foreign language elementary

education students may teach in a non-English language (Exhibit 6-2).

95 Finally, student teaching placement is a cooperative endeavor among students, licensure coordinators, the Field Experiences staff, and the schools. In making placement decisions, consideration is given to a student’s location preference. The faculty coordinator/advisor then makes recommendations on the basis of his or her knowledge of the student, the school, and available cooperating teachers. If the Field Experiences staff concurs with the coordinator’s recommendation, the school district is contacted and provided with information about the student teacher for whom placement is requested. The school district then reviews the material and contacts the Field Experiences staff with a decision either to accept or decline the placement. In cases where a student’s preference is not considered appropriate, or the school district is unable to accommodate the student, the Field Experiences staff finds an alternative site.

79.13(3). Practitioner candidates shall study and practice in settings that include diverse populations, students with disabilities, and students of different ages.

Students in the UTEP observe and teach in settings that are as varied and demographically diverse as possible. Because the population of central Iowa is predominantly

Caucasian, the Field Experiences staff has cultivated a number of settings in or outside the area where populations are more diverse. These areas include Des Moines; Marshalltown; Perry; Fort

Dodge; Davis County; Omaha, NE; and Houston, TX. Secondary Education students who take

CI 280L (Early Field Experience) may embark on field trips to diverse school settings.

The Field Experiences staff makes every effort to place preservice teachers in classrooms where there are students with disabilities. However, there are some inherent difficulties in this process. Because the Field Experiences staff must make placements well ahead of time, there can be no guarantees that B-12 students assessed with disabilities will still be in the setting by the time ISU students arrive. Nonetheless, the staff endeavors to provide as much experience with

96 students with disabilities as possible. All students who take Special Education 459 (Field

Experiences and Practicum – Students with Mild Disabilities) are placed in multi-categorical resource or Strategist I settings. Overall, an ongoing challenge faced by both the Field

Experience staff and faculty in the early childhood education program is that special education placements at the PK-3 level and classrooms with students on IEPs can be difficult to find

(Exhibit 6-3).64

79.13(4). Clinical practice for teacher and other professional school personnel candidates shall support the development of knowledge, dispositions, and skills that are identified in the Iowa board of educational examiners’ licensure standards, the unit’s framework for preparation of effective practitioners, and standards from INTASC or other national professional organizations as appropriate for the licenses sought by candidates.

The State of Iowa requires all teacher preparation programs to assess students’ teaching and content competencies. In order to be recommended for a teaching license, all students must have demonstrated satisfactory performance across these designated competencies, as defined by their specific licensure area. Iowa State University uses the same competency standards that are used to evaluate teachers. Each licensure area monitors meeting the standards and ensures the successful demonstration of those standards by its students.

79.13(5). Practitioner candidates shall develop the capacity to utilize assessment data in effecting student learning in prekindergarten through grade 12.

Building on coursework in Psych 333 or CI 332, students are provided the foundation for understanding the power of assessment and the utilization of assessment tools; each content area

64 Exhibit 6-3: List of Field Experience Placements can be found online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

97 provides more in-depth experience with the tools and strategies specific to that content area.

Practicum and student teaching experiences require that students use evaluations in the lesson plans and units they prepare. This is evident in the syllabi for CI 468 (Supervised Practicum in

Teaching) as well as CI 416 & 417 (Supervised Student Teaching). For these courses, students’ lesson plans and units receive careful review by supervisors and cooperating teachers who provide feedback. To receive an acceptable rating, students must demonstrate that they understand how to prepare, implement and interpret assessment/evaluation components and adjust future lessons to insure students learn successfully (Table 6-4). 65

Table 6-4: Assessment Courses Listed on Filed Exhibit Sheets Major Course

Elementary CI 332 ECE CI 332 HDFS 340 HDFS 343 SPED 355

Agriculture CI 333 AgEds 417 Art (discontinued) CI 333/533 Art Ed 514 Art Ed 516 Art Ed 517/518 English CI 333 Engl 397 Engl 494 Engl/CI 417 Foreign Languages CI 333 F Lng/CI 417 F Lng/CI 487 Health CI 333 H S 375 H S 417 Family and Consumer Sciences CI 333/533

65 Exhibit 6-4: Blank Copy of Student Feedback Sheets prepared by Supervisors and Cooperating Teachers is located online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php and sample completed sheets located in the Exhibit Room.

98 Education FCEdS 403/515 FCEdS 417 Math CI 333/533 Music CI 333 PE Ex Sp 470 Science CI 419 Social Studies CI 333 Special Education CI 332 Sp Ed 365 HDFS—Human Development and Family Studies CI—Curriculum and Instruction AgEd—Agricultural Education and Studies Engl—English FCEdS—Family and Consumer Sciences Education ExSp—Exercise and Sport Science HS—Health Studies SPED—Special Education

79.13(6). Environments for clinical practice shall support learning in context, including: a. Scheduling and use of time and resources to allow candidates to participate with teachers and other practitioners and learners in the school setting. b. Practitioner candidate learning that takes place in the context of providing high quality instructional programs for children. c. Opportunities for practitioner candidates to observe and be observed by others and to engage in discussion and reflection on practice. d. The involvement of practitioner candidates in activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning.

The student teaching term is the culmination of a student’s teacher preparation program.

During that term, student teachers work with their cooperating teachers throughout entire school days, including planning and conference periods. Student teachers are expected to adopt their cooperating teacher’s contract day, which may include many additional ancillary duties.

Consequently, they have ample opportunity to interact with their cooperating teachers as well as to work with B-12 students. Students in all field experiences are observed and guided by supervisors, faculty and cooperating teachers who form a close-knit triad working toward a successful comprehensive experience that contributes to the growth and development of the

99 B-12 students served (Exhibit 6-5).66 Student teachers also have opportunities to complete journals/logs, to engage in reflective discussion with teachers and other student teachers in the school settings, and to work in a successful collaboration with students, supervisors, and cooperating teachers. Additionally, students attend teacher in-service sessions, work with a variety of materials and resources, and participate in teacher workshops, conferences, and seminars.

79.13(7). School and college/university faculty shall share responsibility for practitioner candidate learning, including, but not limited to, planning and implementing curriculum and teaching and supervision of the clinical program.

There are several ways that B -12 teachers and ISU faculty/supervisors share responsibility for the learning of teacher education students. Preparation prior to student teaching includes a curriculum rich with methods courses where students have an opportunity to see methods and strategies modeled by faculty. They practice written and oral communication and are exposed to the professional dispositions modeled and reinforced by faculty and supervisors of accompanying practicum experiences.

ISU relies on its school partners to facilitate and lead the evaluation conferences.

Students can observe first-hand the working ties and collaboration evident between faculty, supervisors and cooperating teachers at professional organization meetings and conferences.

Exhibit 6-6 denotes a description of the completed cohort programs (Project Opportunity,

TechCo, and the West Des Moines Project)67 which have required that ISU faculty and B-12

66 Exhibit 6-5: Listing of Unsuccessful Student Teachers is located in the Exhibit Room.

67 Exhibit 6-6: A Brief Description of Cohort Programs can be found online at: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rema/615/sept14/techco_seminar.html and http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

100 teachers/staff collaborate extensively, planning and making adjustments as students progress through their courses and practica. In addition, the Secondary Social Studies (CI493) methods course has been physically located in the Ames Community School District. Students effectively have learned their craft on-site with the cooperation of secondary social studies teachers, ISU faculty, and students.

79.13 (8). School and college/university faculty shall jointly provide quality clinical experiences for practitioner candidates. Accountability for these experiences shall be demonstrated through: a. Jointly defined qualifications for practitioner candidates entering clinical practice. b. Selection of college/university and school faculty members to demonstrate skills, knowledge, and dispositions of highly accomplished practitioners. c. Selection of college/university and school faculty members who are prepared to mentor and supervise practitioner candidates. d. Involvement of the cooperating teacher and college/university supervisor in the evaluation of practitioner candidates. e. Use of a written evaluation procedure with the completed evaluation form included in practitioner candidates’ permanent records.

Policies and practices regarding student admission and retention in UTEP have been developed by ISU faculty in collaboration with teachers in the field. UTEPC has representatives from B-12 schools, the ISU faculty/staff, and current teacher education students. UTEPC has established the policies and procedures for admittance to UTEP and monitors those candidates.

For example, during the 2002-03 academic year, the UTEPC instituted additional measures for screening students seeking admission (Exhibit 6-7).68 Each applicant now must have a criminal background check prior to admittance to UTEP.

68 Exhibit 6-7: Spring 2003 Minutes for UTEPC can be found in the Exhibit Room.

101 In addition, the Field Experiences Office has its own advisory committee that makes recommendations and provides direction (Exhibit 6-8)69 and the CI Department has an advisory committee containing B-12 educators to monitor the professional core curriculum (Exhibit 3-3).

As discussed in Chapter 5, ISU faculty members with primary responsibilities in teacher preparation, including student teaching supervision, are selected for their expertise and proven performance in their designated field. Additional supervising teachers employed by the Field

Experiences Office also are chosen for their professional excellence. Current supervisors include retired teachers and administrators who, in the past, have demonstrated outstanding instructional abilities and who have worked with ISU student teachers or practicum students. Field Experience staff are quite familiar with the work of potential supervisors before employing them.70

Interested, qualified future supervisors are asked to submit a cover letter expressing interest and information about qualifications, availability, location and a current vita to the Director of

Field Experiences. An informational meeting about ISU student teaching supervision, expectations and hiring details is held once yearly in late spring. Mutual interest is discerned and an offer of possible employment may be extended.

For all clinical experiences, supervising and cooperating teachers evaluate student performance throughout, giving both formative and summative evaluations. Optional weekly feedback forms are given to students and shared among supervising and cooperating teachers.

Formative evaluation tools include midterm grades and end-of-semester forms. Student teachers may request letters of recommendation and permission to use the teacher or supervisor as a

69 Exhibit 6-8: Minutes of the Field Experiences Advisory Committee can be found in the Exhibit Room

70 Exhibit 6-9: List of Supervisors can be found online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php Paper copies of supervisors’ vita with their previous public school teaching experience are on file in the Field Experiences office.

102 reference. Feedback and other forms related to practica and student teaching experiences are kept on file in the Field Experiences Office or CI Office or other Departmental Offices (Exhibit 6-

79.13(9). The institution shall annually offer workshop(s) for prospective cooperating teachers to define the objectives of the student teaching experience, review the responsibilities of the cooperating teacher, and provide the cooperating teacher other information and assistance the institution deems necessary. The cumulative instructional time for the workshop(s) shall be a day or the equivalent hours, and the workshop(s) shall utilize delivery strategies identified as appropriate for staff development and reflect information gathered via feedback from workshop participants.

At least once every year, the Field Experiences staff offers a workshop for cooperating teachers. All current or potential cooperating teachers are invited. During the 2002-03 academic year, the workshop was held off-campus in a restaurant that catered a meal and snacks. This half- day event covered a variety of topics, which evaluation forms revealed were of great interest to participants. Early childhood and elementary-level teachers typically attend in much greater numbers than do secondary teachers. To attract greater participation among secondary teachers as well as to boost numbers generally around the state, field experience staff from all three

Regent Universities created a joint cooperating teachers workshop during the 2003-04 academic year.72

The first Regents ICN Cooperating Teacher Workshop was offered January, 2004, at nine sites around the state with the facilitators originating from one site in West Des Moines. Each of the sites had a facilitator representing one of the Regents’ institutions. Approximately ninety cooperating teachers attended the 2 ½ hour workshop. The Field Directors have sought and been

71 Exhibit 6-4: Fall 2005 Final Evaluation Form

72 Exhibit 6-10: Agenda, Information Packets, and Attendance Lists for Previous Cooperating Teacher Workshops are located in the Exhibit Room.

103 granted permission by Dr. Jackie Crawford, Iowa Department of Education, Administrative

Consultant of Practitioner Preparation, to offer two such workshops yearly. Those ICN workshops were held in January and May 2005. The intent is to offer all Teacher Education institutions an opportunity to participate in these workshops on a fee basis, beginning fall 2005.

79.13(10). The institution shall enter into a written contract with the cooperating school providing field experiences, including student teaching.

The Field Experiences Office prepares contracts for every K-12 school hosting a student teaching experience. All of these contracts are on file.73 The Field Experience Office prepares contracts for most K-12 practicum field experience settings. The Department of Human

Development and Family Studies prepares contracts for B-PreK educational placement settings.

When other departments arrange their own practica, the Department is responsible for preparing a contract. Most contracts are on file in the Field Experience Office. Other contracts are available in the respective department offices.

73 See practicum and student teaching site contracts on file in the Field Experiences office.

104 Chapter 7: Practitioner Preparation Candidate Performance: Candidate Knowledge and Competence

79.14(1) a. Candidates for teacher and other professional educational personnel roles in schools shall be expected to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions identified by the profession and reflected in the national guidelines for the appropriate field, including methods of teaching with an emphasis on the subject area and grade level endorsement sought.

79.14(1) b. Alignment shall exist between the unit’s expectations for content, performance, and dispositions, content and pedagogy identified by national professional organizations, Iowa board of educational examiners’ licensure standards, national advanced certification, and other standards appropriate for specific areas.

79.14(1) c. Teacher candidates shall develop the dispositions, knowledge, and performance expectations of the INTASC standards embedded in the professional education core for an Iowa teaching license at a level appropriate for a novice teacher.

The Iowa State University Teacher Education Program is a rigorous standards-based curriculum aligned internally with the University’s Strategic Plan and the Interstate New Teacher

Assessment and Support Consortium and State of Iowa Quality Teacher Standards contained in

Chapter 79. Furthermore, the UTEP is designed in alignment with the three overarching principles required for accreditation by the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC):

Competence, Caring, and Qualification. Some subject-area fields also are accredited by their professional disciplinary associations, so they meet those standards as well as those listed above.

Discipline areas are also aware of national standards in their areas and incorporate those standards into the preparation programs. For example, the National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics Standards inform preparation of teachers of mathematics at both elementary and secondary levels. Similarly the National Science Education Standards inform the pedagogical preparation of elementary education students and secondary science education students. In both areas, students are informed about the discipline standards in methods courses and instruction

105 emphasizing teaching consistent with those standards. National standards in other discipline areas similarly influence methods courses across all options of the UTEP (Table 7-1).

Table 7-1: Consistency of ISU UTEP with National Standards UTEP Option Area Iowa State Program is consistent with National Standards of: Early Childhood Education (B-preK) National Association for the Education of Young Children; Council for Exceptional Children, Division of Early Childhood; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; National Association for the Education of Young Children Science Education (K-6, 7-12) National Science Education Standards Mathematics Education (K-6, 7-12) National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Literacy Education (K-6, 7-12) Standards for the English Language Arts by the International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English Agricultural Education (7-12) American Association for Agricultural Education (AAAE) National Standards for Teacher Education in Agriculture English Education (7-12) Standards for the English Language Arts by the National Council of Teachers of English/International Reading Association Foreign Language Education (K-6, 7-12) Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Family and Consumer Science Education (7-12) National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences

Social Studies Education (K-6, 7-12) National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) Table 7-1 illustrates how Iowa State has aligned its INTASC standards with the Iowa Quality Teaching Standards: Table 7-2: Mapping of the ISU (INTASC) Standards to the Iowa Teaching Quality Standards Iowa ISU Standards (INTASC Standards) Teaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Quality Standards 1 X X 2 X 3 X X 4 X X X 5 X X 6 X 7 X 8 X Approved by UTEPC in Spring 2004.

106 79.14(1) d. Teacher candidates shall acquire a core of professional education knowledge that includes social, historical, and philosophical foundations; human growth and development; student learning; diversity, including mobile students, students speaking English as a second language, and exceptionalities (students with disabilities and students who are gifted and talented); assessment methods including use of student achievement data in instructional decision making; classroom management addressing high-risk behaviors including, but not limited to, behavior related to substance abuse; teachers as consumers of research; law and policy, ethics, and the profession of teaching.

Table 7-3 demonstrates how the above core areas are addressed in the teacher education

curriculum:

Table 7-3: Coverage of State Professional Core in ISU TE Curriculum State Professional Core ECE Elementary Secondary Social, historical, and CI 204 CI 204 CI 204 philosophical foundations Human growth and HDFS 102, 220, 221, HDFS 226, CI 332, CI 426, CI 333, HDFS development CI 332 HDFS 102, PSYCH 102, PSYCH 230 230 Student learning CI 245/268, CI332 CI 245/268, CI332 CI 333, CI 426 Diversity, including mobile CI 250, 406 CI 250, 406 CI 333, CI 406 students, students speaking English as a second language, and exceptionalities (students with disabilities and students who are gifted and talented) Assessment methods including CI 332 CI 332 CI 333 use of student achievement data in instructional decision making Classroom management CI 332 CI 332 CI 333, CI 426 addressing high-risk behaviors including, but not limited to, behavior related to substance abuse Teachers as consumers of CI 332 CI 332 CI 333, CI 426 research Law and policy, ethics, and the CI 204, CI 332, CI406 CI 204, CI 332, CI406 CI 204, CI 333, CI profession of teaching 406, CI 426

107 79.14(1) e. Teacher candidates shall acquire a core of liberal arts knowledge including but not limited to mathematics, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities.

The University Teacher Education Program is based upon a traditional liberal arts/general education foundation. All Program-qualified students, majoring in ECE, El ED, MAT in science education, M.Ed. in mathematics education, or a specific secondary disciplinary area, must earn a minimum of 33.5 credits from four areas: Sciences and Mathematics, Social Sciences,

Humanities, and Communication. This liberal arts, general education coursework represents approximately two semesters of coursework in the eight-semester program.

The specific liberal arts/general education requirement is presented on p. 338 of the Iowa

State Catalog.74 This section is repeated below:

The General Education Requirement All prospective teachers are required to meet general education requirements as a part of their preparation. Undergraduate Students Undergraduate students must complete studies in four general education groups. General education courses may be found in many departments. Credits listed are minimum requirements. Specific departments and/or colleges may require additional credits. Credits used to satisfy these general education requirements typically satisfy department and college general education requirements. (See licensure area coordinator for more information.) Cr. 9 I. Natural sciences and at least one mathematics course 9 II. Social sciences 6 III. Humanities 9 IV. Communication skills .5 Library Skills (Lib 160) 33.5 Total The above requirements must include: Engl 104 and 105, or equivalent One course that develops interpersonal or group presentation skills (See approved list.) Psych 230 or HD FS 102 One course in American history or government (See approved list.) Post-Bachelor’s Students Students holding an appropriate bachelor’s degree who wish to pursue teaching licensure must have at least one course in each of the four groups identified for undergraduate students in the preceding section. Individual departments preparing teachers may require additional credits in general education. (See licensure area coordinator, listed below, for additional details.)

74 Exhibit 1-1: Iowa State University Catalog: Undergraduate and Graduate Courses and Programs 2005-2007 is located in the Exhibit Room and online at: http://www.iastate.edu/~catalog/

108 In addition, program students must complete the Professional Teacher Education

Requirement, a minimum of 28 credits of pedagogy-focused instruction or its equivalent. These requirements are listed on page 107 and on p. 338 of the university catalog.

Secondary education students also have additional requirements in their major that are practitioner-preparation related and is described in the Iowa State University Catalog:

Undergraduate and Graduate Courses and Programs 2005-2007 (Exhibit 1-1).

In accord with the goals of “highly qualified” educators expected by the No Child Left

Behind legislation, ISU students have strong preparation in subject matter content. Secondary licensure students have a major (or its equivalent) in their subject matter teaching field. El ED and ECE students must earn at least 41 credits distributed across the liberal arts. El ED students also take 3 mathematics courses and 3 science courses in addition to their math and science education courses,-more than most teacher preparation programs in El ED. Elementary education students must also complete a 24 credit area of specialization. Area of specialization disciplines include:

 Art  English and Language Arts *  English as a Second Language*  Foreign Language*  Health  History  Mathematics*  Music  General Science*  Social Studies*  Special Education (Multi-categorical Resource Room)*

 Speech/Theatre*75

75 Successful completion of starred areas leads to recommendation for an endorsement in those areas.

109 The Professional Teacher Education Requirement (Professional Core) Field Experience Requirement All students must satisfactorily complete a minimum of 50 hours of pre-student teaching laboratory experience. This requirement may be met through a pre-student teaching course (e.g., C I 280, C I 580) or, in certain endorsement areas, a course designated to provide an equivalent experience. Undergraduate Students Prospective teachers must complete certain studies related directly to the profession of teaching. All undergraduate students in teacher education must take the following courses prior to student teaching, unless the student’s licensure area has an approved content-area course deemed to be equivalent. (Areas with equivalent courses include: Music and Physical Education; see specific Licensure Area Requirements section below for details.) Cr. 3 C I 201—Instructional Technology 3 C I 204—Social Foundations of American Education 3 C I 333—Educational Psychology OR C I 332 -- Educational Psychology of Young Learners 3 C I 406—Multicultural Gender Fair Education 12-16 Student teaching (minimum-12 weeks) Students in K-12 licensure areas and secondary education (grades 7-12) licensure areas must also complete the courses listed below unless the student’s licensure area has an approved equivalent. (Areas with approved equivalents include: Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, Mathematics, and Physics; see Licensure Area Requirements sections below for details. ) Cr. R C I 415—Senior Seminar 3 C I 426—Principles of Secondary Education Post-Bachelor’s Students Students who hold an appropriate bachelor’s degree and seek a teaching license must complete the professional education requirements listed above through course work or examination. Master’s Students As part of the total educational program, the prospective teacher must complete certain studies related directly to the profession of teaching. All students enrolled in Master’s programs that lead to initial licensure must take the following courses prior to student teaching, unless the student’s licensure area has an approved content area course deemed to be equivalent. (See Master’s Programs section below for details.) Cr. 3 C I 501—Foundations of Instructional Technology 3 HPC 504—Studies in the Foundations of American Education 3 C I 506—Multicultural Gender Fair Education in Curriculum Development and Instruction 3 C I 526—Principles of Secondary Education 3 C I 533—Educational Psychology of Learning, Cognition, and Motivation 12-16 Student teaching (minimum -12 weeks)

Some Master’s programs also require a special education course.

110 All licensure-area students also have strong pedagogy coursework and a variety of field experiences. These preparation areas, however, are only part of the expectation. Undergraduate

Teacher Education Program students and post-baccalaureate students must also demonstrate successful performance in the following (individual option areas may impose higher requirements):

Requirements for full admission to the Teacher Education Program as an undergraduate:

1. ACT composite of 19 or SAT above 910 or high school rank above 49%. 2. Praxis I scores that meet eligibility for program admission. (Total score across reading, mathematics, and writing of 522; no score below 170.) 3. 2.5 cumulative GPA minimum (admission and continuing eligibility) 4. Department recommendation and University Teacher Education Program Committee approval. 5. 10 hours of pre-admission practicum experience. 6. Criminal background check.

Graduate students must meet the following requirements:

Requirements for full admission to the Teacher Education Program as a post-bachelor’s student:

1. A bachelor’s degree from a regionally accredited institution and a minimum 2.5 cumulative grade point average from that institution. (Some licensure areas may require a higher cumulative grade point average.) 2. One of the following: a. —Acceptable GRE scores (at least 400 on each of the Verbal and Quantitative sections. Some areas may require higher GRE scores.) b. —A composite Praxis I (PPST) score of 522, with a minimum of 170 for each test (reading, writing,and mathematics.) Some licensure areas may require higher Praxis I scores. Details regarding the dates and fees for these tests are available in the Testing Office in 2030 Student Services Building or from the Education Student Services Office. 3. Documented completion of ISU approved 10 hours of pre-student teaching field experience. 4. A report from a criminal background check initiated by ISU’s recommending official.

Requirements for full admission to the Teacher Education Program as a Master’s student:

1. Full admission to an appropriate Master’s degree program. 2. One of the following: a. —Acceptable GRE scores (at least 400 on each of the Verbal and Quantitative sections. Some areas may require higher GRE scores.) b. —A composite Praxis I (PPST) score of 522, with a minimum of 170 for each subtest (reading, writing, and mathematics.) Some licensure areas may require higher Praxis I scores. Details regarding the dates and fees for any of these tests are available in the Testing Office in 2030 Student Services Building or from the Education Student Services Office. 3. Documented completion of ISU approved 10 hours of pre-student teaching field experience. 4. A report from a criminal background check initiated by ISU’s recommending official.

111 To provide a general sense of how students proceed through and experience the major program options, three narratives describing the secondary, elementary, and early childhood education options are provided.

The Program Option in Secondary Education

Students enter the secondary English education program through two major routes. Some begin their undergraduate study at ISU and then at some point in their matriculation enter the

English Department as majors and choose teacher education as the area of emphasis. The majority of English education students, however, enter the university as transfer students from community colleges and move directly into the English major and the teacher education program.

In the case of transfer students, the first step is to meet with the advisor in the English

Department who works exclusively with teacher education students, a group that makes up about one-half of the department’s enrollment. This advisor helps students match up their community college credits with university requirements and plan out a program of study. At this time, students also receive a packet of information that includes a program overview and introduces the eight Teacher Quality Act (TQA) Standards and the department’s portfolio review system for verifying students’ performance level ability in meeting the standards.

Generally speaking, transfer students enter the program with their basic literature requirements completed and sometimes with transfer credits in social foundations of education

(CI 204) and the introductory course in human growth and development (Psych 230). Thus, most transfer students are positioned to focus, almost from the very beginning, on courses in curriculum and instruction, including the required credit hours/contact hours of practicum (CI

280); advanced courses in English; and the courses that make up the professional sequence in

112 English Education: Engl 397: Practice and Theory of Teaching Writing in the Secondary School;

Engl 396: Teaching the Reading of Young Adult Literature; Engl 494: Practice and Theory of

Teaching Literature in the Secondary School; and Engl 417: Student Teaching in English.

Like transfer students, students who enter the program after beginning their matriculation at ISU start by meeting with the English education advisor in order to declare an English major and learn about the TQA standards and portfolio system. Unlike transfer students, when these students lay out their programs of study, they usually still need to take general education requirements and to begin taking introductory literature courses prior to addressing advanced

English courses, education requirements in Curriculum and Instruction, and the sequence of

English education courses.

Regardless of how students enter English education, when they begin to focus on courses directly related to their area of study they usually start by taking English 219: Introduction to

Linguistics; English 220: Descriptive English Grammar; and upper division courses in literature.

Early on in this phase, students also take the Praxis I exam, English 396, and English 397. When students take these latter two courses they begin compiling a qualifying portfolio that represents a pre-requisite for taking English 494; they also begin compiling a licensure portfolio, discussed in more detail below, based on the TQA standards. In addition, when students take English 397 they apply for admission to the University Teacher Education Program and complete both 10 hours of practicum prior to being admitted to the University Teacher Education Program and forty additional hours after admission.

Students next move into a series of semester registrations made up of upper division

English courses, including English 353: World Literature; English 310: Rhetorical Analysis;

English 339: Literary Theory and Criticism; English 420: History of the English Language; and

113 courses in American literature, British literature; and advanced writing. During this phase of their programs of study, students also take CI 395: Teaching Reading in Middle and Secondary

Schools as well as upper division courses in Curriculum and Instruction. During students’ last semester on campus before student teaching, they take English 494, which is aligned with a second fifty hours of practicum. During English 494, students also apply for student teaching as well as complete more entries in their licensure portfolios.

Student teaching marks the culmination of English education students’ programs of study. Students begin working in their schools on or, usually, before the first day of ISU’s semester, complete an entire semester in the classroom, and finish on Wednesday of finals week.

On the Thursday or Friday between the end of their student teaching assignment and before graduation, students meet one last time with their supervisors to fill out course evaluations of their student teaching experiences and to present their final set of portfolio entries based on student teaching. Since student teaching is a full-time teaching experience, in this last installment of the standards portfolio, students present artifacts and arguments that address all eight of the

TQA standards.

English education students begin working on meeting state licensure standards as soon as they enter the department and declare a major in English. At their first meeting with the English

Education advisor, students are introduced to the eight TQA standards and given a packet of information that outlines the procedures for meeting those standards in the form of a licensure portfolio linked to their course work and practica. This packet of information, which is on file with the other documents from English education, provides students with an overview of the state and program standards and explains how they will write a series of portfolio entries based on the TQA standards over the course of their programs of study. Each of these entries includes

114 artifacts from students’ coursework and practica presented with commentaries written in the form of arguments making the case that they have achieved performance-level ability.

The syllabi for the courses in the sequence of professional courses (Engl 397, 396, 494, and student teaching) detail the standards addressed in each course and the Designated

Performance Indicators (DPI) relevant to each standard. At the completion of each course, students turn in the required portfolio entries, one for each relevant standard, which are graded and then filed. At the conclusion of student teaching, the last installment of the licensure portfolio, based on the student teaching experience and composed of artifacts and entries for all eight TQA standards, is handed in. At this time, the whole portfolio is reviewed before students are recommended for licensure by the English Education Coordinator.

In addition to meeting the state standards, English Education students focus in their course work on reading in their content area. In Engl 396: Teaching the Reading of Young Adult

Literature, students survey the history and current market of books written for young adults and study how to present this body of literature to secondary students in ways that enhance their reading and critical thinking abilities. In Engl 397: Practice and Theory of Teaching Writing in the Secondary School, students study four general approaches to teaching writing based on the current-traditional paradigm, expressivism, the rhetorical tradition, and social construction. For each of these approaches, students learn the basic pedagogic terminology they will need to teach their students in order to work with them on their writing. In addition, in the writing workshop section of 397, students learn how to read and respond to peers’ writing in the context of teaching the processes of drafting, revising, and editing. In Engl 494: Practice and Theory of

Teaching Writing in the Secondary School, students study ways of teaching the reading of literary texts. The emphasis in this course is on Louise Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory, but

115 students also discuss such teaching and reading approaches as formalism, reader-response, and literature circles. Because it is often neglected (or avoided) in students’ undergraduate preparation, there is special emphasis in 494 on reading and teaching the reading of poetry. Also in 494, students address issues related to teaching literature to at-risk students and, in the unit they design for the final project in the course, establishing accommodations for students with special needs. In addition to addressing content area reading in the departmental sequence of professional courses, English Education students also take CI 395: Teaching Reading in Middle and Secondary Schools, a course which is described in the catalog as having to do with “analysis and application of strategies to enhance students’ literacy development in middle and secondary school settings.”

Even though content area reading and students with special needs are topics in the on- campus phase of students’ programs of study, these areas are most effectively addressed during practica and, especially, during student teaching. Depending on the specific needs of their students, during student teaching, English Education students work variously with reading specialists, counselors, resource teachers, ESL/ELL teachers, Talented and Gifted teachers, and other school staff members. In addition, they confer with faculty, administrators, and parents in the on-going work of addressing the manifold needs of the diverse population of students enrolled in area schools. Even though occasionally the English Education program will make out-of-state or international student teaching assignments, practically all the assignments are made in central Iowa, where it is virtually impossible for student teachers not to receive the experience they need in order to begin the process of becoming qualified to work with special needs students. Even affluent, suburban districts in this area enroll minority students, second

116 language learners, students with learning and behavioral disabilities, and other students with various special needs.

The Program Option in Elementary Education

The majority of the students who major in elementary education begin their college career at Iowa State University. Students can access information about the elementary education major from the Iowa State University website.76 Once there, they can find information pertaining to the major in any number of places. The webpage that contains the most complete information is the Department of Curriculum and Instruction’s webpage,77 which includes the curriculum and also a typical four-year plan. This site includes the curriculum for the elementary education major, including the four-year plan (Exhibit 7-1)78. This plan indicates when students take the general education courses required in the major.

Once a student has been admitted to Iowa State University and declares elementary education as a major, he/she meets with one of the academic advisors in the Department of

Curriculum and Instruction (CI). The advisor begins to help the student outline a course of study that is further developed in the professional orientation course. In addition to its core requirements, every student who majors in elementary education completes 24 hours of coursework in an area of specialization she/he selects. The available areas include Art, *English and language arts, *English as a second language, *Foreign language, Health, *Mathematics,

Music, *General science, *Social studies, *Special education, and *Speech/theater. An asterisk before an area indicates that completion of the sequence of courses for that area of specialization

76 Iowa State University website: www.iastate.edu

77 Department of Curriculum and Instruction’s webpage is located online at http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/

78 Exhibit 7-1: Elementary Education Major Four-Year Plan is located online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

117 leads to an endorsement in an Iowa State University program that has been approved by the

Board of Educational Examiners.

During the fall semester of a student’s freshman year, he/she will take general education requirements, including Mathematics for Elementary Education I (Math 195). Typically a freshman student majoring in elementary education will begin taking courses in the professional education core during the spring semester of the freshman year. The courses most often taken at that time are Social Foundations of American Education (CI 204) and Introduction to

Instructional Technology (CI 201). In addition, the student will take Developmental Psychology

(Psych 230) or Individual and Family Life Development, (HDFS 102) and Mathematics for

Elementary Education II (Math 196). During the fall semester of the second year, the student would take Education of the Exceptional Learner in a Diverse Society (SpED 250), in addition to

Development and Guidance in Middle Childhood (HDFS 226) and Children’s Literature (HDFS

240). During this semester the student begins taking courses in his/her area of specialization.

The spring semester of the second year, the student takes Strategies for Teaching (CI

245) and a strategies practicum (CI 268). At the beginning of this semester, the student applies for admission to the teacher education program. Admittance to the program requires that the student have a minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.5; a minimum ACT composite of

19 OR a minimum SAT I composite score of 910 OR a high school rank above the 49th percentile; a composite Praxis I (PPST) score of 522, with a minimum of 170 for each test

(reading, writing, and mathematics); documentation showing that 10 hours of pre-student teaching field experience have been completed in an approved setting; and a criminal background check. The student also takes Educational Psychology of Young Learners (CI 332) at this time.

118 If the student is admitted to the teacher education program, he/she begins taking the methods courses specific to elementary education in the third year. During the fall semester of the third year, the student takes Literacy Block I, which includes methods courses in Primary

Literacy (grades K-3; CI 377) and Mathematics (CI 448). A one-hour practicum is taken in conjunction with each of these courses (CI 468A and CI 468C respectively). The student attends class on-campus for nine weeks, and then is placed in a primary classroom for four weeks. The student is in the practicum setting twice a week for the entire day. He/she then returns to the on- campus classroom for the remaining three weeks of the semester. During this semester, the student also takes Multicultural Gender Fair Education (CI 406). In the spring of the third year, the student is enrolled in Literacy Block II, which includes methods courses in Intermediate

Literacy (grades 4-6; CI 378) and Science (CI 449). Again, a one-hour practicum is taken in conjunction with each of these courses (CI 468B and CI 468D respectively). The student attends class on-campus for five weeks, and then is placed in an intermediate classroom for 4 weeks. The student is in the practicum setting twice a week for the entire day. He/she then returns to the on- campus classroom for seven weeks. The student also takes one of the related methods courses

(Health, PE, Music, or Art).

During the fall semester of the fourth year, the student takes the Social Studies methods course (CI 443) and a second related methods course. At this time, the student applies to student teach during the spring semester of the fourth year. In order to student teach, the student has to have full admission to the teacher education program, has to complete the student teaching application by the deadline, has to have an Iowa State University minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.5, has to have a C or better in all of the professional teacher education courses in elementary education, and has no unacceptable ratings and/or no more than two marginal

119 ratings on any Designated Performance Indicator (DPI) discussed in Chapter 8. All elementary education majors complete two student teaching experiences, each one lasting eight weeks. One of the student teaching placements is in a primary classroom and one is in an intermediate classroom. During this semester, the student also applies for the initial Iowa teaching license at the elementary level. This process includes completing an application, being fingerprinted, and going through a thorough background check. Upon successful completion of this process and the student teaching experiences, the student is recommended to the Board of Educational

Examiners for the initial Iowa teaching license by Iowa State University.

Students who transfer to Iowa State University from a community college or another 4- year college/university meet with a departmental academic advisor, who helps them plan a course of study. In addition to many of the general education requirements for the elementary education major, transfer students often transfer in one or more of the professional education courses required in this major. Courses that may be transferred include equivalents to

Instructional Technology (CI 201), Social Foundations of American Education (CI 204),

Education of the Exceptional Learner in a Diverse Society (SpEd 250), Children’s Literature

(HDFS 240), and Educational Psychology (CI 332). If a student transfers from Des Moines Area

Community College in Ankeny, he/she may transfer in the equivalent of Math for Elementary

Education I (Math 195) and Math for Elementary Education II (Math 196) if the series is completed there.

Iowa State University has transfer equivalency agreements with several of Iowa’s community colleges. The Department of Curriculum and Instruction has developed specific articulation agreements with Des Moines Area Community College, Iowa Central Community

College, Kirkwood Community College, Marshalltown Community College, North Iowa Area

120 Community College, and Northwest Iowa Community College. Students majoring in elementary education may enroll in any of these community colleges and take between 39 and 41 credit hours of predetermined courses over an academic year, including the summer. They may then transfer to Iowa State University in the fall of year two and are guaranteed to student teach and graduate in the spring of year four, as long as they have met and maintained the eligibility requirements for the teacher education program. The transfer policy and articulation agreements can be bound by following the “Undergraduate Programs/Teacher Preparation” link on the CI webpage.

The Program Option in Early Childhood Education

The early childhood education (ECE) program at Iowa State University is a unified program that leads to endorsement 100. This endorsement allows students to work with children, both typically developing and those with special needs, from birth to grade 3. Because of this age span, students are required to take courses in early childhood education in the Department of

Human Development and Family Studies (HDFS) and in the primary grades (K-3) in the

Department of Curriculum and Instruction. In order to coordinate the early childhood education major more efficiently and effectively, the ECE program will be designated as an interdepartmental program beginning in the fall of 2005. A percentage (10-15%) of a full-time faculty member’s position will be assigned as the coordinator of the ECE major. A full-time advisor will oversee the day-to-day activities of the major, including the advising of all students in the major. While there is some overlap in the courses required of these students and those in the elementary education major, there are some major differences.

The majority of the students who major in early childhood education (ECE) begin their college career at Iowa State University. Students can access information about the ECE major

121 from the Curriculum and Instruction website. This site includes the curriculum for the for the early childhood education major, including the four-year plan (Exhibit 7-2).79 This plan indicates when students take the general education courses required in the major.

Once a student has been admitted to Iowa State University and declares early childhood education as a major, he/she meets with the ECE academic advisor. The advisor begins to help the student outline a course of study that is further developed in the professional orientation course.

During the fall semester of a student’s freshman year, he/she will take general education requirements, including Mathematics for Elementary Education I (Math 195). Typically a freshman student majoring in ECE will begin taking courses in the professional education core during the spring semester of the freshman year. The courses most often taken at that time are

Social Foundations of American Education (CI 204), Introduction to Instructional Technology

(CI 201), and Individual and Family Life Development (HDFS 102). During the fall semester of the second year, the student would take Development and Guidance for Ages Birth through Two

Years (HDFS 220) and Development and Guidance for Preprimary and Primary Children (HDFS

221). In addition, he/she would take Children’s Literature (HDFS 240).

The spring semester of the second year, the student takes Strategies for Teaching (CI

245) and a strategies practicum (CI 268). At the beginning of this semester, the student applies for admission to the teacher education program. Admittance to the program requires that the student have a minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.5; a minimum ACT composite of

19 OR a minimum SAT I composite score of 910 OR a high school rank above the 49th percentile; a composite Praxis I (PPST) score of 522, with a minimum of 170 for each test

79 Exhibit 7-2: Early Childhood Education Major Four-Year Plan is located online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php

122 (reading, writing, and mathematics); and a criminal background check. The student also takes

Assessment and Curricula for ages birth through two years (HDFS 340), Educational Psychology of Young Children (CI 332), and Education of the Exceptional Student in a Diverse Society

(SpEd 250) at this time.

If the student is admitted to the teacher education program, he/she begins taking the methods courses specific to the primary grades, in addition to continuing to take courses having to do with preschool children. During the fall semester of the third year, the student takes the

Primary Literacy (grades K-3; CI 377) methods course. A one-hour practicum is taken in conjunction with this course (CI 468F), as is a course in Issues in Literacy for Diverse Learners in the primary grades (SpEd 368). The student attends class on-campus for nine weeks, and then is placed in a primary classroom for four weeks. The student is in the practicum setting twice a week for the entire day. He/she then returns to the on-campus classroom for the remaining three weeks of the semester. During this semester, the student also takes Assessment and

Programming for ages three through six years (HDFS 343) and Adapting Programming in

Inclusive Settings (HDFS 345). In the spring of the third year, the student is enrolled in a block of courses related to primary-aged children. This block which includes methods courses in Social

Studies (CI 433), Mathematics (CI 438), Science (CI 439), Classroom Assessment (SpEd 355), and Inclusive Instructional Methods (SpEd 455). A practicum experience is taken in conjunction with the Mathematics and the Science courses (CI 468G and CI 468I respectively). The student attends class on-campus for five weeks, and then is placed in a primary classroom for 4 weeks.

The student is in the practicum setting twice a week for the entire day. He/she then returns to the on-campus classroom for seven weeks. The student also takes Multicultural Gender Fair

Education (CI 406) during this semester.

123 During the fall semester of the fourth year, the student takes the Curricula for ages three through six (HDFS 455) and Family Focused Services for Young Children (HDFS 456). At this time, the student applies to student teach during the spring semester of the fourth year. In order to student teach, the student has to have full admission to the teacher education program, has to complete the student teaching application by the deadline, has to have an Iowa State University minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.5, has to have a C or better in all of the professional teacher education courses in the early childhood education major, and has no unacceptable ratings and/or no more than two marginal ratings on any Designated Performance

Indicator (DPI), discussed in Chapter 8. All ECE majors complete two student teaching experiences, each one lasting eight weeks. One of the student teaching placements is in a preschool setting and one is in a primary classroom. One of the placements has to include students with special needs. During this semester, the student also applies for the initial Iowa teaching license at the elementary level. This process includes completing an application, being fingerprinted, and going through a thorough background check. Upon successful completion of this process and the student teaching experiences, the student is recommended to the Board of

Educational Examiners for the initial Iowa teaching license by Iowa State University.

Students who transfer to Iowa State University from a community college or another

4-year college/university meet with the ECE academic advisor, who helps them plan a course of study. In addition to many of the general education requirements for the ECE major, transfer students often transfer in one or more of the professional education courses required in this major. Courses that may be transferred in include equivalents to Social Foundations of American

Education (CI 204), Education of the Exceptional Learner in a Diverse Society (SpEd 250),

Children’s Literature (HDFS 240), and Educational Psychology (CI 332). If a student transfers

124 from Des Moines Area Community College in Ankeny, he/she may transfer in the equivalent of

Math for Elementary Education I (Math 195). Students are encouraged to take courses specific to early childhood at Iowa State University. Iowa State University has transfer equivalency agreements with several of Iowa’s community colleges. Should a student want to attend a community college, he/she can take carefully selected courses based upon input from the Iowa

State University ECE academic advisor.

79.14(1) f. Teacher candidates shall acquire through a human relations course approved by the board of educational examiners knowledge about and skill in interpersonal and intergroup relations that shall contribute to the development of sensitivity to and understanding of the values, beliefs, life styles, and attitudes of individuals and the diverse groups found in a pluralistic society.

Because the program experiences that address 79.14 (1) f and 79.14 (1) g overlap, our response to both is presented below 79.14 g.

79.14(1) g. Teacher and other professional school personnel candidates shall demonstrate their dispositions and knowledge related to diversity as they work with student populations and communities.

The Professional Core classes are listed on Table 7-3. All Program students must successfully complete CI 406, Multicultural Gender Fair Education (3 credits) and have field experiences where 406 course content is applied in classroom settings. The course description for CI 406 is: Awareness and nature of cultural pluralism; need for multicultural gender fair education; multicultural concepts and theories; cultural groups—their perceptions, needs, and contributions; problems and issues regarding ethnocentrism, prejudice, and discrimination based on race, class, sex/gender, and language in the school environment, curriculum infusion and transformation, multicultural gender fair interaction, design and execution of teaching strategies.

In addition, students in Elementary Education and Early Childhood Education also receive education about individual differences among students and special education students in CI 332

125 Educational Psychology of young children, CI 250 Education of the Exceptional Learner in a

Diverse Society, and in required human development courses (Psych 230 Development

Psychology or HDFS 102 Individual and Family Life Development, HDFS 226 Development and Guidance in Middle Childhood, and in the additional developmental courses required of

ECE students. Individual differences in development, abilities, motivation, personality, as well as social/cultural differences all represent differences that teacher must recognize and must adapt or differentiate their instruction to meet needs of students. Students in secondary programs complete Psych 230 Development Psychology which deals with developmental differences, and

CI 333 Educational Psychology which deals with individual differences and exceptional learners/special education.

The evaluation forms and DPIs for student teaching include evaluation of the student’s disposition and ability to appropriately plan for and teach to diverse students.

79.14(1) h Teacher candidates in elementary education shall acquire knowledge about and receive preparation in elementary reading programs, including but not limited to reading recovery .

Candidates in the EL ED and ECE programs both complete CI 367 Teaching Literacy in the Primary Grades (3 credits)80 or CI 377 The Teaching of Reading and Language Arts in the

Primary Grades (K-3) (3 credits). These courses are essentially the same and both cover principles of teaching of reading in the primary grades. Both cover Reading Recovery.

79.14(1) i. Teacher candidates in secondary education shall acquire knowledge about and receive preparation in the integration of reading strategies into secondary content areas.

80 While CI 367 is listed in the catalog, it typically is not offered. Most ECE students take CI 377.

126 Each secondary education program at ISU is located in the departments and colleges where the students complete their academic majors. Thus, reading in each content area is handled differently by each discipline according to the academic conventions and particular needs of teachers practicing the discipline. These approaches are described below for each secondary area.

Agriculture

The program in Agricultural Education addresses reading in the content area through technical materials and textbooks that students use to help them develop lesson plans.

Specifically, reading in the content area is addressed in curricular materials in AgEd 310, 401,

402, and 417.

English

The program in English Education addresses reading in the content area in each of the courses in the professional sequence of courses. In addition, students in English Education take

Engl 310: Rhetorical Analysis and Engl 339: Literary Theory and Criticism. One of the goals of both these classes is to introduce students to a variety of ways to read, analyze, and discuss texts in a wide range of genres. English Education students also take CI 395: Teaching Reading in

Middle and Secondary Schools, which focuses on the “analysis and application of strategies to enhance students’ literacy development in middle and secondary school settings.” Following are summaries of how each course in the English Education professional sequence addresses reading in the content area. More specific information and relevant DPIs are located in the syllabi for these courses.

Engl 394: Teaching the Reading of Young Adult Literature: Students in this course

engage in critical analysis of young adult literature and learn specific classroom practices

127 for teaching secondary students to read, interpret, and criticize texts of various genres.

Students also learn how to evaluate literature for use in classrooms and school programs.

Engl 392: Practice and Theory of Teaching Writing in the Secondary School:

Students in this course study four commonly encountered general approaches to teaching

writing based on the current-traditional paradigm, expressivism, the rhetorical tradition,

and social construction. For each of these approaches, students learn the basic pedagogic

terminology and conceptual frameworks they would need to help their students read and

understand texts and curriculum materials based on these four general approaches. In

addition, in the writing workshop section of 392, students learn how to read and respond

to peers’ writing in the context of teaching the processes of drafting, revising, and

editing.

Engl 494: Practice and Theory of Teaching Literature in the Secondary School:

Students in this course study ways of teaching the reading of literary texts. The emphasis

is on Louise Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory, but students also discuss such teaching

and reading approaches as formalism, reader-response, and literature circles. Because it

is often neglected (or avoided) in students’ undergraduate preparation, there is special

emphasis on reading and teaching the reading of poetry. Also in 494, students address

issues related to teaching reading to at-risk students and, in the unit they design for the

final project in the course, establishing accommodations for students with special needs.

Family and Consumer Science Education and Studies

128 Material related to reading in the content area of FCS is currently being integrated into the methods course, FCEDS 306; and the curriculum course, FCEDS 413. In FCEDS 306 preservice family and consumer sciences students explore and apply current methodologies for integrating reading into their future FCS classrooms. Course activities include guest speaker(s), course readings, in-class learning activities, assignments (lesson and unit plan), and peer teaching.

Foreign Languages and Literatures

In the secondary foreign language methods course, students study top-down, bottom-up, and bidirectional reading processes. They also examine the purposes for reading and the importance of identifying the purposes for reading before giving materials to their students: identification, orientation, main idea comprehension, detail comprehension, full comprehension, and replication. Students focus on four kinds of knowledge used in reading—linguistic, topical, discourse structures, and rules of inference—as well as receive guidelines on how to select reading passages (texts) that are appropriate for students at different levels of proficiency.

Students also learn about the importance of using authentic texts (i.e. texts written for native speakers of the language that students are preparing to teach) and about ways to approach a reading passage—skimming, scanning, and extensive reading. Based on their knowledge of the behaviors characteristic of successful readers, the students create a lesson plan on reading based on a five-stage lesson plan: Stage One—pre-teaching/preparation. Stage Two—skimming, scanning. Stage Three—decoding, intensive reading. Stage Four—comprehension checks.

Stage Five—transferable/integrating skills. Their lesson plan on reading is integrated with the lesson plans they create for the other two modes of communication—interpersonal and presentational.

129 Health Education

The program in health education prepares students to become critical readers and teachers of reading in this inter-disciplinary subject area. A majority of health education strategies require a great deal of reading and researching in order for students to understand concepts relative to the ten content areas of health education. Besides teaching secondary students to read the requisite high school text books and ancillary materials, students are often engaged in reading for the preparation of debates, committee work, group and panel discussions and case studies— all content area reading applications that they will, in turn, teach to their students. Value clarification activities such as decision stories and critical essays also require reading skills.

Because health education covers many controversial topics, which will impact them in the future, it is important for students to be able to have decision-making skills which will affect their health through the entire life span. A commitment to researching health topics is vital to maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

Mathematics

In the secondary mathematics methods course, students analyze various high school math textbooks. They focus on complying with National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards by analyzing mathematical content, analyzing contexts, and analyzing language, both technical and non-technical. Specifically, students aim at five main purposes: 1) developing their own understanding of what mathematics is, how children learn it, and how to analyze their students’ thinking, 2) developing a repertoire of teaching strategies that is congruent with their beliefs regarding mathematics and how children learn mathematics, 3) teaching their students to learn how to read and parse mathematical literature, 4) familiarizing themselves with current curricular trends, and 5) fostering a community of learning that includes all students.

130 Music

The program in music education prepares students to read music notation and words.

There are several ways that each of these is reinforced. 1) Reading music―Students reinforce their own reading (and writing) of musical notation through their own private lessons, participation in ensembles, and instruction in music theory classes. They explore a variety of strategies for teaching children to read music notation in Music 366, General Methods in Music

Education. 2) Reading words―Students are prepared to become critical readers in their own studies through the music education sequence of Music 266 – 366 – 466. In this sequence, students prepare written narrations appropriate for school-age students in K-8 general music settings (for example, lesson plan #3 in Music 366 focuses on a listening lesson and reading narrations) and spoken narrations in collaboration with a unit presentation of a concert program

(for example, Music 466 unit plan) for an upper elementary or secondary vocal or instrumental ensemble.

Physical Education

The program in physical education requires a reading-related unit, entitled “Reading

Lesson and Unit,” in the elementary methods course, Ex Sp 284, Elementary and Pre-school

Movement Education. For this exercise students are instructed to read the two assigned books

(one for upper and one for lower grades) and to create a lesson for one of the books and a unit for the other. The unit must have five lessons, and lessons must include objectives, equipment, safety hints, formations, instructions, activities, and evaluation. The evaluation should include an assessment for students to determine student learning. In addition, virtually all of the

Fundamentals classes and some other classes (e.g. measurement and evaluation, where students learn assessment—particularly cognitive assessment) require pre-service teachers to incorporate

131 reading in or out of class into the physical activity lesson. Finally, during student teaching, students must produce four bulletin boards with a written message that can be assessed as part of evaluating student learning. These bulletin boards serve as artifacts that measure, as appropriate, students’ mastery of cognitive (knowledge) outcomes in Physical Education.

Science

The use of pre/during/and after reading strategies are modeled in all the science education courses and explicitly taught in CI 419/519: Secondary Science Methods II. In that course, students first explore some aspect of learning and teaching science and, through that experience, express their thinking about the topic being introduced. Implementing effective questioning, wait-time, positive non-verbals, non-judgmental responses, and playing off students’ ideas, students consider and understand new ways of thinking about learning and teaching. Depending on the issue, additional activities and discussions may occur. Assigned readings follow these activities and discussions and are more understandable because as students read they are able to make more sense of text by connecting what they are reading to class activities and discussions.

This sequence of teachings (Exploratory Experiences―Discussion and Concept Development—

Reading―Applications) reflects research on learning and serves as a model for teaching reading in a science setting (i.e. pre, during, and after reading strategies). Reflecting research on the effectiveness of modeling, CI 419/519 explicitly draws students’ attention to these research- based learning and reading strategies. Students also study the following three chapters in

Topping, D. & McManus, R. (2002). Real Reading, Real Writing: Content-Area Strategies.

Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH.

Chapter 5 – Making Reading Happen: Before Chapter 6 – Making Reading Happen: During Chapter 7 – Making Reading Happen: After

132 Students then link the science education faculty’s modeling of these strategies to these readings.

Doing so promotes reflective thinking and students’ understanding of pre, during, and after reading strategies, which is finally assessed in their lesson plans, course ending research-based framework paper, and oral defense.

79.14(1) j. Teacher candidates shall effectively integrate technology in their instructions to support student learning .

CI 201, Introduction to Instructional Technology, is a program requirement for all candidates and provides an overview of instructional technologies used in educational learning and teaching environments. Special emphasis has been placed on the ethical and equitable uses of instructional technology commonly found in educational settings. Syllabi illustrate how knowledge of the pedagogical considerations of technology are embedded throughout the

Program. Student work product samples and in some areas required portfolios will demonstrate knowledge and disposition. An important aspect of CI 201 is that it focuses on the use of technology as a tool for learning. While pre-service teachers learn to use technology, they do so in the context of learning to integrate the various technologies into their future instructional activities as learning tools they will teach to their future pupils. The goal is to help those future pupils develop as independent learners who can use technology to enhance their own learning, reasoning, and problem-solving.

Technology services for teacher education are continually developed in the Center for

Technology in Teaching and Learning (CTLT).81 The mission of the CTLT is to promote and facilitate research and development to optimize application of information technology for teacher

81 The CTLT website: http://www.ctlt.iastate.edu/

133 education within a pluralistic and global society. To achieve this goal, the center supports the preparation of innovative, technology-using educators, including teacher educators. It collaborates with educators in the field to research, construct, evaluate and disseminate student- centered learning environments. In addition, technology-related educational research and development of teacher education faculty along with a number of colleagues across campus are supported.

Research grants have brought significant additional resources to the University Teacher

Education Program and B-12 schools. Iowa State is a national leader in preparing licensure candidates to teach in virtual schools. With the award of a $600,000 grant from the

U. S. Department of Education, the University Teacher Education Program is now capable of linking teachers and students at a distance. The course focus is not upon how to use technology in a classroom. Instead, it focuses upon guiding students to use technology for problem-based learning and to enhance the ways in which students learn from experienced teachers using successful online instruction.

79.14(1) k. Experienced teachers in graduate programs shall build upon and extend their prior knowledge and experiences to improve their teaching and their effect on student learning as outlined in the national advanced certification propositions.

Curriculum and Instruction offer four degrees at the graduate level as well as programs leading to post-baccalaureate licensure. The degrees are M.A.T., M.Ed., M.S., and Ph.D. The

M.S. and Ph.D. degrees are primarily designed for students seeking careers as researchers and

134 teachers for higher education institution or in industry. These degrees are primarily designed to meet the needs of 79.14 (1) k. The post – baccalaureate teacher licensure options include the

M.A.T. degree (offered only in science education), the licensure option and mathematics education, special education licensure (with or without completion of a Master’s degree) and completion of the undergraduate requirements in other majors. The requirements for these licensure options are described elsewhere in this documents. The M.Ed. degree for students who already have licensure is the degree option that primarily addresses 79.14 (1) k.

The M.ED. degrees offered include:

 M.Ed. with major in education (see Generalist Specialization)  M.Ed. with major in education and specialization in Elementary Education  M.Ed. with major in education and specialization in Curriculum and Instructional Technology  M.Ed. with major in education and specialization in Special Education  M.Ed. with major in education and specialization in Historical, Philosophical, and Comparative Studies in Education

135 The core requirements for the M.Ed. degrees are presented in Table 7-4 below:

Table 7-4: Master’s Core in Education (Curriculum and Instruction) Master of Education Master of Science Minimum 32 credits82 Minimum 35 credits82 Seminar (1 cr.) Seminar (1 cr.) Research Research Methodology (1 course) Research methodology (2 courses) Creative Component (3 cr.) Thesis (3-5 cr.) Curriculum Educational Psychology One course from two of the areas One course from two of the areas HPC One (1) course in C&I outside the One (1) course in C&I outside the Curriculum and Instruction student’s area of specialization student’s area of specialization

All of the CI content courses, as opposed to research methodology courses, acceptable for required or elective credit in these programs meet the requirements of 79.14(1) k. All of these courses include content that helps: Experienced teachers in graduate programs … build upon and extend their prior knowledge and experiences to improve their teaching and their effect on student learning as outlined in the national advanced certification propositions. All of these courses cover theory, research, and practice related to effective education and thus to 79.14 (1) k goals. The syllabi for relevant courses are located online and document this claim.

82 Individual program options may require more than the minimum number of credits. These options are located online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php and in Exhibit 7-3. 8

136 Chapter 8: Practitioner Preparation Candidate Performance: Candidate Assessment and Unit Planning and Evaluation

79.14(2) a. Performance assessment system shall be integral part of the Unit’s planning and evaluation system

The University Teacher Education Program (UTEP) faculty and clinical field experiences team and stakeholders work together to define, align and assess individual candidate quality within the context of Iowa State University’s learning outcomes, the State of Iowa Quality

Teaching Standards IQTS / INTASC standards and the Guiding Principles of the Teacher

Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) (refer to Table 7-2).

Over the past five years, Iowa State University’s UTEP has evolved from an input-based collection of licensure areas (totaling 20), delivered by five academic colleges and administered by the Dean of the College of Human Sciences, into a focused University-wide academic program. The assessment system is designed to provide a standards-based, performance- assessment, data-driven model for continuous improvement of the UTEP. It has a research-based conceptual framework; a clearly defined UTEP faculty of scholars, researchers, teachers and clinical practitioners; an efficient and nimble administrative structure; and a continuous assessment philosophy.

The Program’s Professional Core Curriculum—or its equivalent courses—are mapped and aligned with the Iowa Quality Teaching Standards as well as the INTASC standards (Table

7-2). Students are informed at the outset about the program standards and assessment models as well as reminded and formatively assessed throughout the UTEP, regardless of licensure area.

Students are introduced to the standards in a variety of ways. The University Teacher Education

137 web page82 lists the IQTS. The Curriculum and Instruction web page includes information on the standards and performance assessment system for early childhood education, elementary education, and secondary science and mathematics education. The 2005-2007 Iowa State

University Catalog describes the standards and the performance assessment system. In addition,

CI and other programs provide descriptive material for students; these materials are included in

Exhibit 8-1.83

Students must demonstrate successful performance on all of the Designated Performance

Indicators (DPI) for the State of Iowa Quality Teaching Standards (IQTS)/INTASC Standards.

The UTEP coursework and assignments also reflect INTASC and national discipline standards such as the NCTM or NSSE standards. The DPIs represent only a subset of the assessments students must complete across all courses. For this reasons, both successful course performance as reflected in grades and successful performance on the DPIs are required for graduation and recommendation for licensure. Each licensure area uses DPIs to assess the IQTS/INTASC standards for its methods and field experience courses, in addition to those DPIs required in the

Professional Core Curriculum or equivalent courses. A final assessment on the IQTS/INTASC standards occurs during student teaching to insure that all candidates recommended for licensure have successfully demonstrated competence on every standard.

The performance assessment system is part of an overall candidate and program assessment/evaluation system that is designed to ensure that only qualified candidates are recommended for licensure and to provide feedback for ongoing improvement of program quality. In summary the candidate and program assessment and evaluation system includes the following components: 82 ISU Teacher Education Program Standards and Assessment website: http://www.teacher.hs.iastate.edu/prog_standards.htm

83 Exhibit 8-1: Descriptive Materials about Performance Assessment System is located in the Exhibit Room.

138  Admission requirements: The UTEP has rigorous requirements for admission to teacher education.

 Continuation Requirements: The UTEP requires that students achieve acceptable DPIs in each course for each standard with each standard assessed at least twice with DPIs. Across the set of DPIs, students may receive no unacceptable DPIs, and no more than 2 marginally acceptable DPIs, and must maintain a minimum 2.5 GPA, to continue in the program.

 Graduation/Licensure Requirements: The UTEP requires completion of all required course work, minimum 2.5 GPA, no unacceptable and no more than two marginally acceptable DPIs, and successful practicum and student teaching performance.

 Follow-Up Assessments: A planned system of follow-up assessments with graduates and employers informs program curriculum decision-making.

Each of these components is discussed below.

79.14(2) b. Performance is measured against local, state and national standards

Local, state and national standards, when applicable, show each candidate what is expected for program admission, eligibility to practice in the field, and eligibility to be recommended for initial licensure. Each candidate’s progress is judged by her/his performance in courses including practica and student teaching based upon IQTS, INTASC, and national discipline standards. Performance on DPIs focuses on IQTS/INTASC, but reflects national standards because the DPI assignments incorporate expectations based upon national standards.

For example, in mathematics, literacy, science or social studies education, lesson/unit/course planning must reflect national standards in those disciplines as well as the IQTS/INTASC standards (Table 7-2).

79.14(2) c. Multiple criteria and assessment points

139 As summarized above, major summative assessment points occur at admission, continuation, and graduation/licensure. In addition, students are assessed through DPIs in each pedagogically-oriented course. Across the set of courses, each standard is assessed at least twice. As noted in section 79.14(2)g (3)2 below, there are a variety of assessment types across the DPIs, reflecting different criteria for success. Assessment criteria for successful completion of the program include: course grades and GPA, standardized test performance, successful performance on DPI assignments across courses, and in field-based courses, successful demonstration of teaching knowledge and behaviors that reflect the ISU UTEP (INTASC) and

IQT standards. This comprehensive set of assessments clearly demonstrate multiple criteria and assessment points.

79.14(2) d. Basic skills admission screen

Iowa State University’s UTEP requires a combined Praxis I score of at least 522, with no individual test score below 170. In addition, the full admission criteria include a combination of assessments associated with academic potential, academic achievement, licensure program recommendation (academic advisor, licensure area coordinator, UTEPC), and standardized tests performance. The admission requirements are summarized in Exhibit 1-1 and listed on page

ISU is currently participating in a pilot program to assess the Collegiate Assessment of

Academic Proficiency (CAAP) test battery against the Praxis I tests. Since a large majority of licensure candidates take the ACT for admission to ISU, the UTEPC is interested in seeing if the

CAAP will better supplement the years of data on ISU students and provide more predictive information. The UTEP Committee is also interested in the Science and Critical Thinking Tests that CAAP offers.

140 79.14(2) e. Multiple assessment points throughout the Program

Iowa State University’s UTEP uses DPI assignments to confirm successful performance on the Program’s integrated standards. The student is assessed in each class on one or more standards (Exhibit 8-2).84 Each standard is assessed with a DPI at least twice across the student’s program of study. Students who fail to achieve acceptable performance on a DPI or a satisfactory grade are informed of the consequences by their advisor during registration.

Overview summative assessment of the students qualifications occur at: 1. admission to teacher education, 2. admission to student teaching, and 3. graduation and recommendation for licensure.

Students must be in good standing across all the requirements relevant to that point to continue on. Collectively the system of course-based standards assessments through DPIs and three summative major evaluation points provide a comprehensive system of multiple assessment points in Iowa State UTEP. Exhibit 8-2 illustrates how and in what class each licensure area assesses each DPI.

79.14(2) f. Assessment will involve all stakeholders

Iowa State University’s UTEP Assessment Protocol includes the following:

 Students  Faculty (General Education, Professional Core, Supervisory and Co-op Field Clinicians)  Academic Advisors  Field Experiences Placement Staff  “Hiring” Community (Principals, HR directors, etc.)  National Testing Agencies  UTEP Committee

School-based personnel play an important role in the assessment system because the evaluations of cooperating teachers in practica and student teaching are critical in determining

84 Exhibit 8-2: Overview of DPI Standards Addressed in Each Licensure Area course is located online at http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php.

141 individual students’ progress. In addition, a formal system of assessments for stakeholders and

graduates has been planned and implemented. Follow-up evaluations have been conducted for

many years. Initial follow-up studies were conducted on graduates in 1981. Follow-up studies

were then carried out in 1993, 1999, and 2003.85 These studies have been shared with the

Teacher Education faculty and have informed departmental curriculum and program committees.

Beginning in 2002, a committee of Teacher Education faculty has been examining these

systems of follow-up assessments and the instruments used. They have planned an ongoing

rotating schedule of follow-up assessments. This planned schedule is listed below in Table 8-1.

Table 8-1: Planned Schedule of Follow-Up Assessments of Graduates

Respondent Group Method Frequency Planned Date

Preservice Teachers Survey Every 2 Years F03 S05 S07 S09 Student Teachers Survey (web or paper) Annually by semester Exit interviews Annually by semester Coop/Supervising Focus Group Every 3 Years F04 Teachers F07 F10 Graduates Follow-up Survey Every 3 Years F03 (undergraduate and S06 graduate) S09 Graduates (1 year out) Focus Group Every 3 Years S05 S08 S11 Principals/Headstart Survey Every 3 Years F03 Directors/AEA S07 S10

Students are stakeholders in the system. Students complete course evaluations each

semester in most courses. The CI evaluation form and other departmental evaluation forms are

85 Copies of these reports are available in the Exhibit Room as Exhibit 8-3: ISU Teacher Preparation Report Card One to Five Year Graduate Follow-up Reports and online at http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php.

142 shown in Exhibit 8-4.86 These data are reported to department chairs. They influence faculty evaluation, but more importantly, chairs and faculty discuss issues related to student evaluations and course adjustments are made. Collectively, student course evaluations also inform curricular decisions.

In addition to formal assessments, informal assessment plays a role. Field supervisors and field experience staff also discuss and report input about ISU students back to the program. This practice continues under the supervision of the Director of Field Experiences. Calls from principals and supervisors also are attended to. For example, calls from principals and supervisors and contact with cooperating teachers, as well as changes in ISU faculty and program structure, informed and contributed to the motivation for a major change in the preparation of secondary science teachers.

As this section notes, input from stakeholders is considered by the UTEP. The data from the previous surveys have contributed to and informed modifications in the UTEP. For example, input about the need for increased education with respect to classroom management contributed to changes in CI 245 (taken by elementary education and early childhood education students).

Survey input is distributed to faculty, curriculum committees, and the UTEPC. We believe that our ongoing practice of asking faculty, curriculum/program committees and UTEPC to consider this information will continue and be enhanced by the planned inclusion of additional stakeholders and the ongoing and planned rotation of follow-up assessments.

79.14(2) g (1) Description of stakeholder involvement in system development

Assessment from admission to recommendation for initial licensure involves a comprehensive team effort. The academic requirements and assessment measures originate with

86 Exhibit 8-4: CI Evaluation Form and Other Departmental Evaluation Forms are located in the Exhibit Room.

143 the UTEP faculty in concert with the State Quality Teaching Standards and TEAC principles.

The UTEPC turns the academic requirements and the assessment measures into policy, and the

UTEP faculty implement and continually assess the model itself. Those requirements and assessment policies are refined further by field-experience placement staff as well as clinical practitioners involved in field experience supervision and co-op classroom educators who team with the student teachers during their 12-16 week capstone experience. The loop is completed through alumni and employer feedback on the program. The UTEPC has representatives from nearly all of the groups mentioned above. In addition, the program’s advisory board87 has met periodically to provide input.

The agenda and members of the External Advisory Committee of the Department of

Curriculum and Instruction are presented in Exhibit 8-5. The committee met in 1999, 2000, and

2001. In Fall 2001, Curriculum and Instruction began consideration of revisions in its curriculum for elementary education. It was decided to delay an Advisory Committee meeting until ideas about change were sufficiently developed to invite meaningful input. Unfortunately, the revisions have not yet reached that stage. An advisory committee meeting is planned for CI in academic year 2005-2006.

The creation of the revised governance structure for the UTEP allows for the creation of a program wide external advisory committee. Early in Fall, 2005 semester, the UTEP committee will discuss a proposal for such a committee. The proposal will include both a plan for committee membership and a regular meeting schedule.

87 Exhibit 8-5: The Advisory Board Directory along with the agenda and members of the External Advisory Committee of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction are located in the Exhibit Room.

144 Under University policy, departments must also receive periodic external review by external reviewers selected from peer institutions. CI was reviewed in Spring 2001. A copy of that review is available in Exhibit 8-6.88

Stakeholder input to the UTEP has also been provided by teacher, administrator, and student membership on the UTEP. Exhibit 3-2 contains the list of members for each year until

1999. Minutes of the UTEP are available in the Office of Teacher Education from Linda Reindl.

In 2003, surveys were completed by graduates and principals. The results of these surveys are summarized below and they are reported in Exhibit 8-3.

Survey of Graduates

This report was completed July 2004, by Mari Kemis and Audrey Bowser-Brown and is entitled One to Five Year Graduate Follow-Up: A Report on the Quality of Graduates of ISU’s

Teacher Preparation Program TPRC—01. The study involved a mail survey of graduates of the last five years. 877 graduates were mailed surveys, 4% were undeliverable, and 307 returned usable surveys (36% response rate).

Key findings are summarized—

 Most of the survey respondents were female (85%), were teaching full-time in an elementary public school, and planned to remain in the same teaching position next year. Two of three respondents noted that they live and work in Iowa.  Generally, graduates were satisfied with their jobs, although they were not as satisfied with their salaries. Those who were teaching or not teaching were more satisfied with their relationships with co-workers than were those who were substitute teaching.  Graduates most often described themselves as caring, qualified to teach, and able to display ethical and professional conduct. They were less confident in using technology in their teaching, in dealing with misbehavior appropriately, and in using student achievement data to modify instruction.  Their assessment of the quality of the teacher preparation program was related to the extent to which they felt prepared in the areas outlined by the ISU Teacher Education Licensure Standards. They gave the highest ratings of preparation in the area of

88 Exhibit 8-6: CI External Review Report is located in the Exhibit Room.

145 communication, while reporting that they were least prepared in adapting learning opportunities for diverse learners.  Graduates rated the overall quality of the teacher preparation program as good. In particular, they rated these areas positively—faculty subject knowledge, academic commitment of students in teacher education, modeling sensitivity to diverse issues, and evaluating and reporting work and achievement. They thought that the program could be strengthened by improving enrichment activities in addition to regular classes, placement assistance, and academic advising. The graduates who were teaching and substitute teaching indicated that they were more likely to choose the program of study in teacher education again than were those who were not teaching.  Graduate comments indicated that the strengths of the teacher preparation program can be attributed to having knowledgeable faculty, a variety of field experiences, adequate program preparation for the teaching profession, involvement in Project Opportunity, and experience in integrating technology. However, according to their comments, the graduates felt that the ISU teacher preparation program could be improved in the following ways: assure that course offerings are relevant, offer better assistance with educational student services, incorporate more training and coursework for diverse learners, increase the number of field experiences, and provide more instruction on classroom organization and management.

Survey of Principals

A study of principals of employed graduates was completed in July 2004 by Mari Kemis and Audrey Bowser-Brown. Entitled Principal Feedback: A Report on the Quality of Beginning

Teachers TPRC—02, the report summarized the findings of this study. 355 principals were mailed surveys; 133 or 38% responded.

The findings are summarized below—

 Principals having one to thirty-two (32) years of administrator experience identified themselves as respondents to the survey. They represented rural, small city, suburban and urban school communities.  Virtually all public school principals surveyed held an advanced degree, with 33% reporting having an Education Specialist and 11% having a doctorate.  The majority of principals responding were Caucasian males. Thirty-eight percent of responding principals were graduates of ISU.  During the last three years, 131 principals stated that they had hired 551 first-year teachers, indicating that a total of 156 of those teachers hired were graduates of ISU's teacher preparation program. Ninety-three (93) percent of the principals responded that

146 they probably or definitely would continue to hire graduates from the ISU teacher preparation program.  Principals ranked dedicated to student learning, desire to work collaboratively, and instructional leadership as the top three qualities they look for when hiring a new teacher.  The needs of beginning teachers are complex and multifaceted. Principals cited areas like classroom management, feeling overwhelmed, and organization skills as the top problems faced by beginning teachers.  Principals identified ensuring practical classroom experiences and focusing on effective instructional strategies as the top two components that contribute to a high-quality teacher preparation program.  When asked to list up to three institutions with teacher preparation programs which have the highest quality graduates, 122 principals responded with their top choices as: (1) University of Northern Iowa, (2) Iowa State University, and (3) University of Iowa.  Over 80% of the principals surveyed rated the overall quality of the ISU teacher preparation program as outstanding or good.  Principals indicated that ISU teacher education program must provide more opportunities for practical classroom field experiences and help students develop an understanding of the Iowa teaching standards and the federal mandates of No Child Left Behind.  Additionally, these principals suggested that extensive field-based classroom experiences and more information on state and federal mandated teaching standards would improve the ISU teacher preparation program.  When asked to assess how well ISU prepared its teacher education majors, aligned with the ISU Teacher Licensure Standards, most principals (91%) rated ISU teachers are having adequate preparation in each of the eleven (11) ISU licensure standards areas.  Principals agreed that the ISU teacher education program has succeeded in preparing competent and professional educators. Overall, principals responded positively about their attitudes concerning the extent to which ISU teachers exhibit these behaviors.  The top ratings affirm that ISU beginning teachers are caring, maintain ethical and professional conduct, are qualified to teach, and desire to work collaboratively with other teachers.

Each semester a survey is distributed to students in student teaching. The results from the

Fall, 2004 survey are summarized. These data are reported in Exhibit 8-3 in a report entitled

Iowa State University Teacher Education Program Student Teacher Survey, Fall 2004 Results.

The survey was distributed to 114 student teachers; 38 responded. 21% were ECE students, 66% were Elementary Education students, and about 14% were in various secondary or K-12 options.

147 Most were undergraduates. About 95% would prepare to be a teacher again and feel committed or highly committed to the profession. Over 90% planned to seek a career as a teacher. About

18% planned to consider graduate school. Their comments about the program were generally positive. Some of their concerns were idiosyncratic and specific to them and their particular placement. In general, the comments indicated that students engaged in reflection about their teaching experience and sought increased feedback from supervising and cooperating teachers.

There was some commonality across student teacher, graduate, and principal surveys.

More input about classroom management and dealing with differentiation for individual students are questions perennially appearing frequently on surveys of teacher education programs. ISU has responded to such concerns. For example, a series of cohort projects (Project Opportunity,

West Des Moines Cohort, and Techco) were investigated.89 The latter project is recently completed and results are not fully available. Project Opportunity involved a Professional

Development School type model and substantially increases field experiences. While initial research on project opportunity suggests graduates felt better prepared, a subsequent study revealed that most of the differences disappeared when students’ initial characteristics such as

ACT score or GPA were controlled. The results indicated that better students felt better prepared and better students self-selected into the more demanding Project Opportunity experience.

A principal and one student mentioned improving knowledge of the Iowa Quality

Teaching Standards. ISU has moved to do so. Most of the options use IQTS as the basis for DPI assignments and in student teaching, students are held responsible for the IQTS.

Survey of Faculty

89 A brief description of these cohort programs can be found in Exhibit 6-6 and located online at: http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php.

148 As part of the preparation for this review, a survey of University Teacher Education faculty was conducted. Faculty are stakeholders in the system; there were extensive changes in the UTEP occurring over the last year (e.g. the performance assessment system, option eliminations, creation of a new governance structure, and an unprecedented college combination). In a large institution, it is important to assess faculty involvement with and perception about a program. A set of tables summarizing survey results and the questionnaire are presented in Exhibit 8-7.90

Table 2 summarizes results with respect to faculty familiarity with the program and their perception of the quality of components of the program. The overwhelming majority of faculty are somewhat familiar or very familiar with components of the program. The majority tend to see these components as adequate to outstanding in quality; however, several faculty members also perceive the need for improvement. CI faculty tend to see greater needs for improvement than non-CI faculty.

Table 5 demonstrates that faculty overwhelmingly regard the eleven standards as important or very important and incorporated aspects of them in their teaching. Table 6.2 indicates that faculty believe that a substantial majority of faculty are committed to aspects of helping students become more effective teachers and becoming more effective in their own teaching.

79.14(2) g (2) Evidence that assessment reflects institutional mission and conceptual framework

The assessment plan seeks to enhance the educational experience and learning of practitioner candidates. It is consistent with both the previous (through 2005) and the current

90 Exhibit 8-7: University Educator Survey results are located online at http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php.

149 (2005-2010) strategic plans of the University. In both plans, an emphasis on improving the

educational experience of students was an important component of the plan. In evidence of this

consistency, we present relevant aspects of the current strategic plan of the university and the

current strategic plan of the Department of CI, which provides the professional core for all

teacher education programs. The relationship between the plans and the assessment system is

demonstrated.

The Iowa State University 2005-2010 Strategic Plan is available online at http://www.iastate.edu/~strategicplan/2010/process/drafts/111704.shtml and can be found in Exhibit 1-2. The plan states the mission as:

Mission

Create, share, and apply knowledge to make Iowa and the world a better place.  Create knowledge through world-class scholarship in teaching, research, and creative endeavors.  Share knowledge through outstanding undergraduate, graduate, professional, and outreach programs.  Apply knowledge to improve the quality of life for current and future generations.

In carrying out its mission, Iowa State will increase and support diversity in the university community. Diversity enlivens the exchange of ideas, broadens scholarship, and prepares students for lifelong, productive participation in society.

The ISU mission has the goal of creating outstanding undergraduate, graduate, and

professional programs that contribute to the quality of life for current and future generations.

Similarly, the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, responsible for most of the pedagogical

coursework for most of the programs, includes the following in its mission: In our learning

mission, we strive to be a recognized high quality teacher preparation program that prepares

highly effective teachers and educational leaders;….

The assessment system consists of performance assessments tied to on-campus and field

150 experience courses that reflect important knowledge and skills that teachers must have to be effective. Our course work is designed to prepare students to achieve this knowledge and skill and to use it effectively in field-based settings to facilitate student learning. The assessment system thus directly assesses through performance the knowledge and skills we believe essential to effective teaching. The knowledge and skills we believe to be effective in teaching and the performance we assess are consistent with national discipline standards (see section above on

79.14(2) b. Performance is measured against local, state and national standards) and with

INTASC and IQTS. The consistency is demonstrated by:

 the course syllabi located in Exhibit 3-7  the example assignments in 79.14(2) g (3) 2. Evidence of a wide range of assessment strategies, for both formative and summative purposes, throughout the program  and the example rubrics in 79.14(2) g (3) 5. Examples of scoring rubrics or evaluation criteria for licensure candidates

Our C3 conceptual model (Figure 2-1) recognizes that many disciplines and theoretical approaches have important insights about effective teaching. Across our program we introduce students to a variety of disciplines and theoretical approaches that our faculty believe important in effective teaching. The assessment system is directly tied to the content of the courses which define our eclectic C3 conceptual model. Thus, the assessments reflect the program goals as articulated in the conceptual model.

79.14(2) g (3) 1. Evidence that UTEP and Quality Teaching Standards are shared with clinical practitioners

Information about the UTEP standards and Iowa Quality Teaching Standards are available to and communicated to clinical practitioners in a variety of ways. The Iowa Quality

Teaching Standards are published in the Iowa State University Catalog: Undergraduate and

151 Graduate Courses and Programs 2005-2007 (Exhibit 1-1), are available on the UTEP website, and they are available in course syllabi. Most directly they are available in the UTEP Student

Teaching Handbook (Exhibit 8-8).91 Beginning Fall 2003, cooperating teachers began evaluating student teachers on the ISU Standards (Exhibit 6-4).92 In addition, beginning Fall 2005, the

Department of Education is requiring that cooperating teachers evaluate students with a form that describes both the UTEP (INTASC) and IQTS and that contains a rubric regarding these standards.93

79.14(2) g (3) 2. Evidence of a wide range of assessment strategies, for both formative and summative purposes, throughout the program

The Iowa State UTEP assessment system utilizes a variety of assessments to assess the

INTASC/IQT standards across the complete teacher education program. Because the assessments are course-based, the full range of assessments is contained in the course syllabi for each of the teacher education courses. These courses are identified in Exhibit 3-7 for the various

UTEP options. Across the set of courses, standards are assessed through course assignments designated to be indicators of standards related to performance. In this document, these have been called designated performance indicators or DPIs. In early courses, DPIs include more traditional paper and pencil performance assessments such as tests and papers. Typically such assessments however, reflect skills and knowledge that support effective performance in

91 Prior to Fall 2005, there were separate Student Teaching and Supervisors’ Handbooks. These were reorganized into a single handbook for Fall 2005. Exhibit 8-8: Copies of the New and Old Student Teaching and Supervisors’ Handbooks are available in the Exhibit Room.

92 Exhibit 6-4: Final Student Teaching Evaluation form is located online at http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php. Sample copies of cooperating teachers’ evaluations of student teachers on the standards are available in the Exhibit Room.

93 Exhibit 8-9: Fall 2005 State Department of Education Evaluation form is located online at http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/utep/utep_inst_rprt_exhibits.php.

152 teachers. As students move to more practice-oriented methods courses, DPIs involved more teacher performance such as lesson, unit, and curricular planning. They also include assessment of actual teaching performances through practica courses. In student teaching, candidates are responsible for DPIs that include lesson and unit planning and effective teaching of students in the classes as well as professional interactions with other school personnel, students, and parents.

Table 8-2 provides a sampling of the types of assignments used in the Elementary Education program. Note: a given DPI assignment may assess more than one standard (complete listing on syllabus).

79.14(2) g (3) 3. Evidence of multiple summative decision points

There are three summative decision points: Application to teacher education, Application for Student Teaching, and Graduation/Recommendation for licensure. Figure 8-1 summarizes these points. Students must have acceptable performance on all criteria to pass each point.

Students without acceptable performance are either engaged in remediation activity or dropped from the program.

153 Table 8-2: Examples of DPI Assignments

UTEP/INTASC Course Standard Summary of DPI Assignment Assessed Foundation/ Pre-Admission Courses CI 201 ISU Standard The performance standard for CI 201 is the 3-week multimedia project 10 using Powerpoint or eZedia. All preservice teachers will design an interactive multimedia learning activity for students based on a curriculum concept.

CI 204 ISU Standard In CI 204, Outcome Standard 8 will be assessed by four specific 8 Performance Indicators—namely, a group oral presentation, an individually written book report, and two examinations, a midterm and a comprehensive final. Students must pass these Performance Indicators with an AVERAGE grade of B- (80%) or higher.

CI 250 ISU Standard This course meets the competency standards of the state of Iowa 2 regarding diverse learners. Specifically, the future practitioner will learn how students differ in their approaches to learning and how to create instructional opportunities that are equitable and adaptable to diverse learners. Academic progress in this course is measured by the four multiple-choice exams will constitute "proof" of having met the performance outcomes requirements. A final grade of "C" or higher represents acceptable progress. A final grade of "C-" represents unacceptable progress in meeting the state of Iowa designated standards regarding "diverse learners."

CI 332 ISU Standard Students will be given two comprehensive unit exams as evaluation for 1 & 7 the performance assessment standards. These exams cover content related to the themes of Understanding Students and Assessment. The format of the exams requires students to recognize, apply and produce knowledge in order to demonstrate mastery of content as well as being able to make interpretations of various forms of informal and formal assessment.

Methods Courses CI 245/268 ISU Standard The standards will be evaluated by reviewing lesson plans written for 3, 4, & 5 the six learning strategies taught in 245/268. Students must also show evidence of the inclusion of higher order thinking skills, Effective School’s literature, Samuel Kirk’s work with psycholinguistic abilities, Mager’s instructional objectives (A,B,C,D), and Cantor’s “Assertive Discipline” or other management strategies as utilized in lesson planning. A written assignment which will detail plans for creating a positive classroom community, and a written paper indicating management strategies will be activities used to evaluate performance.

CI 377 ISU Standard For this course, a lesson plan and a child case study, which will be part 3, 4, & 7 of the field challenge assignment, have been identified as DPIs. The field challenge is an extension of the literacy investigation but will occur during the practicum experience.

154 UTEP/INTASC Course Standard Summary of DPI Assignment Assessed CI 443 ISU Standard Student will design an instructional unit that includes a representation 2, 3, & 4 of the required ISU standards. This is a 5 lesson mini-unit based on a relevant unit topic and grade level for future classroom assignment. (Two students will team.) The unit includes worksheets, tests, background information, art ideas, readings, etc. Students will be evaluated on the assignment on the following scale (note: the assignment may also count in the overall course grade) unacceptable (0-24 pts.), marginally acceptable (25-30 pts.), acceptable (31-40 pts.).

CI 448 ISU Standard Students complete the Interview-Teach-Interview (ITI) Project. Each 3 student must interview a student about her/his understanding about a particular mathematics topic they taught during practicum, teach a lesson, and then interview the student afterwards in order to analyze the learning and teaching that occurred.

CI 449 ISU Standard The Research-Based Framework for teaching science (RBF) 1, 3, 4, & 6 assignment meets state-required designated performance indicator criteria. The designated performance indicator (or RBF) requires that students develop rationales congruent with research on effective teaching and learning to describe their student goals, content/materials/activities/strategies, the teacher’s role in the classroom, and relevant learning theories. Students will convey their understanding of teaching and learning through writing (paper) and oral communication (exit interview). Papers are typically 15-20 pages long and contain about 30 references.

CI 416A Iowa Teaching Each student teacher shall have the opportunity to become Standards 1, 2, knowledgeable about the Iowa Teaching Standards, including a mock evaluation performed by the cooperating teacher. This mock 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 evaluation is to be used as a self-assessment tool and may be kept by the student teacher.

155 Figure 8-1: Checkpoints for Teacher Education Program

Admission to Teacher Admission to Student Recommended for Licensure Education Teaching

Requirements Requirements Requirements

2.5 GPA 2.5 GPA 2.5 GPA

ACT of 19 or Satisfactory completion of all Satisfactory completion of all SAT of 910 or required course work required course work High School Rank > 49 Passing grades in all required Passing grades in all required Praxis I of 522 with no score courses1, 2 courses1, 2 below 170 or GRE of 400 each on verbal and All teaching methods courses All teaching methods courses quantitative tests3 completed completed

Satisfactory completion of 10 No unacceptable and no more No unacceptable and no more hours of pre-admission field than two marginally than two marginally experiences acceptable DPI ratings acceptable DPI ratings

Satisfactory criminal background check

No unacceptable and no more than two marginally acceptable DPI ratings

1 Elementary Education requires minimum grades of C in all foundation and teaching methods courses (CI 201, 204, 250 332, 377, 378, 406, 443, 416A,B, 468A, B, C, D, 448). Early Childhood Education requires minimum grades of C- in all foundation and teaching methods courses ((CI 201, 204, 250 332, 377, 378, 406, 443, 416A,B, 468A, B, C, D, 448), HDFS 102, HDFS 220, HDFS 221, 240, 340, 343, 345, (one of 349, 395, 445, 449, or 460), 455, 456, SPED 455, 355, and student teaching courses (i.e. CI 416A/HDFS 417C or HDFS 417B/SPED 415). Secondary mathematics and science requires minimum grade of C in required professional teacher education courses and minimum grade of C- required subject matter courses for the endorsement (see Teacher Education section of the Catalogue or the Teacher Education web page for the required courses). 2 See specific program requirements for other teacher education program options for minimum grade requirements. 3 Specific programs may require higher scores, see specific program requirements for your teacher education program options.

156 157 79.14(2) g (3) 4. Evidence of candidate competence in each of the UTEP Mission goals, Quality Teaching Standards, and TEAC

Exhibit 8-1094 lists the evaluation criteria for each individual student who graduated in a

UTEP option and were recommended for Iowa licensure. 100% of the students met the graduation and licensure requirements in force at the time of graduation. These data provide evidence that the students met content knowledge requirements through demonstrating an acceptable level of performance in the classes as assessed by their grades. In addition, their acceptable scores on the Praxis examination demonstrate competence in basic communication and mathematical knowledge.

Implementation of the Performance Standards system began in Fall 2001. The system was implemented according to a schedule in which a student beginning Fall 2001 would normally take classes with DPIs. For CI, this schedule is provided in Table 8-3. Similar schedules were in effect across all program options. Full enforcement of the system began in

Spring 2005. However the system was not fully approved by the University Academic Standards

Committee until Fall 2004. Thus, while students in the Fall 2001 entering class and subsequent classes were assessed with the DPIs, they were not held accountable for the unsatisfactory DPIs until Spring 2005. These students were evaluated in student teaching on all standards in Spring

2005. This phased-in implementation schedule was needed to facilitate creation of DPI assignments and to meet University regulations with respect to standards applied to students.

Even though the performance outcomes standards assessment system was implemented on a phased in schedule, data on students’ performance was collected beginning with students in

94 Exhibit 8-10 lists the evaluation criteria for each individual student who graduated in the UTEP since Fall 1999. The Evaluation Criteria is available in the Exhibit Room.

158 Table 8-3: Schedule for Bringing Performance Standards and Designated Performance Indicators On-Line

Listed below is the schedule for courses to come “on-line” with respect to the performance outcomes. The schedule is based upon the Standard four year plan for Elementary Education Majors. Because there is considerable variation within years, I believe we need to bring courses on-line in the year they would normally be taken.

2001-2002 CI 201, CI204, 2002-2003 CI 250, CI245/268, CI333 2003.2004 CI 377, 378, 468A-I, 448, 449, 406, 443 2004.2005 CI416A,B

the entering class of Fall 2001. Exhibit 8-10 provides data with respect to the performance of

individual students on DPIs in the core classes. As can be seen, the overwhelming majority of

students demonstrated acceptable performance on the standards.

79.14(2) g (3) 5. Examples of scoring rubrics or evaluation criteria for licensure candidates

The DPI assignments and their scoring rubrics or criteria for evaluation are provided in

the syllabi for each class. These are available in Exhibit 3-795 in the Exhibit Room.

79.14(2) g (3) 6. Demonstrate credibility of both assessment system and assessment instruments

The credibility of the assessment system and instruments is demonstrated in a variety of

ways. Taken as a whole, the assessment system has the following components.

 Pre-admission criteria  Performance and completion of classes in content and in pedagogy  Performance on the DPIs which include assessment of actual teaching performance during student teaching

95 Examples of the DPI Assignments and their Scoring Rubrics or Criteria are located in the course syllabi that are available in the Exhibit Room.

159  Follow-up assessments of graduates and employers

Evidence with respect to credibility is discussed for each of these in turn.

Pre-admission criteria. The pre-admission criteria consist of ACT/SAT scores or performance in high school, performance on Praxis tests, as well as grades in college classes at the time of admission to teacher education. Tests such as the ACT/SAT and Praxis that have credibility are shown by a variety of well-known sources of evidence. Within the limitation of range restrictions for individual campus, ACT/SAT scores typically predict performance in college classes.96 Praxis scores and high school grades are substantially related to ACT/SAT scores and reflect, at least in part, the same underlying competencies. Grades are typically the best predictor of future grades within limits of range restriction. These assessments and Praxis in particular have a heavy verbal component and verbal ability are teacher characteristics related to successful teaching performance in terms of student achievement (Cochran-Smith, & Zeichner,

2005). Measures such as ACT, SAT, Praxis, and grades reflect general mental ability and the latter is related to successful performance in many jobs (Gottfredson, 1997; Hunter, 1986;

Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmidt, Ones, & Hunter, 1992). Teacher ability as assessed by similar variables has shown relations with student achievement in at least some studies (Greenwald,

Hedges, and Laine, 1996; Rice, J. K, 2003). The most comprehensive review of research in this area is provided in the recent AERA report on teacher education (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner,

2005). While certainly the available research is not comprehensive or conclusive, this report indicates “… several recent studies provide stronger evidence of a relationship between teacher

96 Range restriction influences how strong prediction coefficients are. Students impose restrictions because student ability as assessed by such instruments is related to student selection of institutions to which to apply. Colleges impose restriction on the range of scores because only students with scores above some absolute or floating compensatory minimum are accepted for admission and only a subset of those admitted actually matriculate. Thus, in every institution, the range of scores of matriculated students is less than the range of scores possible on the test. The maximum possible size of any prediction coefficient is positively related to the range. The smaller the range the smaller the possible prediction coefficient.

160 verbal ability and student achievement …” (Zumwalt & Craig, 2005, p.181). Taken together, these two lines of evidence: ability and job performance, ability and student achievement, add credibility to the use of ability measures and grades as admission criteria in our comprehensive assessment system.

Performance and completion of classes in content and in pedagogy. The credibility of the use of class performance and successful completion of classes in content and pedagogy as a component in the overall assessment system is supported by at least three lines of evidence.

One line of evidence is logical; in order to effectively teach a given content area one must have some minimal level of knowledge of that area. While courses completed and course grades are not perfect measures of knowledge, they are reasonable standards in practice and, in fact, are part of the qualification assessment in many professions. This logical assumption is somewhat supported by the available research on subject matter knowledge and student achievement.

While the research is far from conclusive, is nuanced in complex ways, and is correlational in nature, some studies, primarily in the areas of mathematics and, to a lesser extent, science report positive correlations between assessments of teachers’ knowledge of content and their students’ achievement (Floden and Meniketti, 2005). Again, while the research base is weak because of the paucity of studies, the limitations of methods, and, perhaps, the expense of conducting high quality research in this area, it is sufficiently positive to add credibility to the inclusion of performance in content courses as assessment criteria for teacher education.

With respect to courses in pedagogy, there are several lines of research that add credibility to the use of grades in pedagogical courses as assessment components. While very nuanced and far from complete, research on the effects of methods classes has shown some positive relationships with desirable teaching practices and belief changes (Clift & Brady, 2005).

161 Goldhaber and Anthony (2004) found that teachers passing the National Board for Professional

Teaching Standards assessment were more effective than teachers who had not passed the

NBPTS assessments. Given that these assessments are generally consistent with teaching practices promoted in teacher education, this study provides evidence consistent with the idea that effective education in and implementation of desirable pedagogical practices contribute to student achievement. Laczko-Kerr and Berliner (2002) found that certified teachers completing traditional teacher education programs were more effective than alternatively certified teachers.

Similar results are reported by Darling-Hammond, Berry, Barnett, & Thoreson (2001). While this research area is far from conclusive and is controversial, these cited results add credibility to

Iowa States use of grades in pedagogical classes as a component in the assessment system.

Performance Assessment System (DPIs). The ISU UTEP assessment system also has credibility through the performance assessment system with its designated performance indicator

(DPI) assignments. Across the set of courses, students are assessed on assignments that reflect important teaching knowledge and skills as identified in national standards (e.g. the national organizations identified in Table 7-1, INTASC) and by the Iowa Department of Education through the Iowa Quality Teaching Standards. The faculty, collectively, have extensive experience in school settings, and their expertise and experience also contributes credibility to the DPI assignments. In field–based practica courses and the student teaching course, experienced professional teachers including the cooperating teachers and ISU supervisors evaluate ISU candidates on the same standards. The expertise of the national organizations, the

Iowa Department of Education, the faculty, and the cooperating teachers all lend credibility to the ISU assessment system.

162 Finally, the assessment system involves a long term follow-up component with graduates and employers using a variety of research methods. Some of the follow-up activities have been ongoing for 25 plus years, and we are initiating others at the present time. Collectively this input will continue to inform programmatic decisions. Information from employers includes reactions about actual teaching performances of graduates; it is this ultimate criterion, effective teaching performance that leads to student learning, for which the ISU UTEP seeks to prepare students.

Thus, the long term use of feedback, as implemented and planned in the ISU assessment system, also contributes to its credibility.

79.14(2) g (4) 1. Samples of evaluative data collected from teachers and other school personnel who work with the program candidates to illustrate program quality as well as how those data are used for continuous improvement

An example of how data from teachers was used for program improvement also involves feedback provided by cooperating teachers. Approximately 5 years ago, the Elementary

Education major changed from ½ day practica placements to full day practica placements. This change occurred as a result of feedback from cooperating teachers and supervising teachers that a full day placement would allow students to better experience a school day and to better benefit from the experience.

79.14(2) g (4) 2. Evidence collected on alumni and their employers and examples of how that evidence was used for program improvement

The long term follow-up system is described in section 79.14 (2) g (1).

163 79.14(2) g (5) Illustrate how data collected through the individual practitioner candidate assessment system is used to refine and revise the program’s conceptual framework, goals, content and delivery methods

Complete implementation of the performance assessment system is quite recent. Even so, the process of implementing the performance assessment system with an emphasis on outcomes assessment based upon identified standards has induced several changes. As a collective faculty, we have more systematically considered the conceptual foundation of the

UTEPC and the ways in which we carry out standards based outcomes assessment. The implementation of DPIs in courses has led us, as individual faculty, to more systematically consider how courses impact desirable teaching / learning outcomes.

For example, in the area of mathematics methods, Dr. Jenna Seymour has intensified course work and requested that the DPI project, whenever possible, focus on childrens' addition/subtraction/multiplication/division word-problem solving. This content area cuts across grade levels, can be incorporated in many content areas, is a focus of current state professional development efforts, and has robust research on developing student understanding. This research is covered using video and text materials and activities teacher workshops experimental research has shown to increase both teacher and their students' learning. Lesson plans are drafted and graded prior to practicum, but resubmitted before teaching the lesson for prompt feedback and additional grading. The rubric for the final paper emphasizes that the research must be used to analyze the mathematics, plan, interviews, lesson, and student learning.

In a second example, Dr. Jenna Seymour, who teaches mathematics methods, and Dr.

Geoff Abelson, who teaches special education, coordinated their DPIs--- the low achieving student used for Abelson’s DPI was the same one that was interviewed for Seymour’s DPI. This meant that their students spent more time and collected more information on one low achieving

164 student—which resulted in modifications in mathematics instruction for this student and for reflected insights from special education as well as from mathematics methods.

Dr. Lori Norton-Meier has used the data from the DPIs for her literacy methods course to re-think how she supports her students to act as reflective practitioners and to analyze the learning of their own future elementary students. Throughout the semester, she now requires her students to complete a series of active literacy investigations that allow them to intellectually engage in an analysis of their own learning processes and how to apply this to elementary student learning. This effort has lead to significant improvement in the reflection components of the

DPIs for this course.

A final example involves the Early Childhood Education major. The Early Childhood

Education-Unified major combines regular and special education. It is a combined program option across Curriculum and Instruction (CI) and Human Development and Family Studies

(HDFS). The CI special education team and HDFS special education team have planned meetings to discuss curriculum and course assignment related to the ECE major, especially in the area of IEPs. These planned interactions have come about in part because of review of the students’ performance on the DPIs.

We anticipate that, as the performance assessment system and our planned analyses and reports of the data it generates continue to operate, both program-wide and course specific changes will continue to occur.

79.14(2) g (6) Explain how the assessment system is managed

Management of the Performance Assessment System involves the efforts of faculty and support staff at the Department level as well as individuals in the Office of Teacher Education.

The management system is still evolving and Iowa State is working to create an electronic

165 database that captures the assessment data. The general plan for the management system is as follows.

Department Level

 Department Faculty: Faculty teaching courses in which there are DPIs evaluate the DPI assignments in their courses as acceptable, marginally acceptable, unacceptable (A, M, U)

 Department Support Staff: Typically grades are reported to a designated department secretary, who checks them for completeness and signs off on them for the Department Chair. At the time faculty turn in grades, they are asked to report their student’s assessment (A, M, U) for each standard assessed in the class. The report is based on the standard because a given DPI assignment may reflect one or multiple standards. Advisors in the department are informed about the assessment because they potentially influence the student’s future coursework

Office of Teacher Education

 Associate Director of Teacher Education: Under the authority of the Dean/Director of Teacher Education, overall management responsibility for the UTEP rests with the Associate Director of Teacher Education. The Associate Director supervises the Teacher Education Program Coordinator.

 Program Coordinator: Department support staff report the Standards assessments to the Program Coordinator. The UTEP Program Coordinator has responsibility for collecting and managing information about the assessment data. In the evolving plan, the assessment data will be entered into an electronic database. Under the direction of the Associate Director and the UTEP Committee (UTEPC), the Program Coordinator will generate reports from the database to inform curricular and programmatic decisions by the UTEPC and department curriculum committee

 Teacher Education Program Operations Team (TEPOT): The licensure analyst is a member of TEPOT. Prior to issuing a license, the appropriate staff in the department recommending licensure and licensure analyst reviews the students’ records to ensure they are compliant with UTEP assessment requirements (no unacceptable standard ratings, no more than two marginally acceptable ratings across all standards ratings across all relevant courses).

Management of Follow-Up Data. Data from follow-up assessments have been collected by the Research Institute for Studies in Education. While RISE will remain a component of the follow-up assessment system, particularly in the instrument design and data collection/analysis

166 phases of the system, responsibility for managing and maintaining the collected data and information will reside with the Teacher Education Program Coordinator. The Program

Coordinator, under the guidance and supervision of the Associate Director and UTEPC, will develop reports from this data to inform the UTEPC and respective department curriculum committees. The UTEPC or a designated sub-committee will be involved in planning any modifications in the Follow-Up Data Assessment Plan. Such modifications may include: review and redesign of instruments, alternations in the Follow-Up Assessment Schedule, planning of reports, recommendations for changes in the assessment system, and any other modification needed to effectively accomplish the mission of a comprehensive follow-up assessment system.

79.14(2) g (7) Explain the process for reviewing and revising the assessment system

The process of reviewing and revising the assessment system will be ongoing and involve

UTEP option departments (Agricultural Education and Studies; Apparel, Educational Studies and Hospitality Management; Curriculum and Instruction; English; Foreign Languages and

Literatures; Health and Human Performance; Human Development and Family Studies; and

Music) and their respective curriculum committees, TEPOT and the UTEPC. Using reports prepared by the program coordinator on the performance of students on the assessments and the reports of the follow-up studies, the UTEPC will review the assessment system at least annually and propose changes in the system as needed. Any member of the UTEP committee will be able to propose changes in the assessment system for discussion and implementation at regularly scheduled UTEPC meetings.

167 All reports will be shared with departments and their curriculum committee.

Departments will be charged with reviewing the available data and proposing any modifications through their departmental UTEPC representative.

79.14(2) h Annual report on Program submitted to the Bureau of Practitioner Preparation and Licensure

Annual reports are presented in Exhibit 8-3. A major issue in these reports and in our program has been in creation and implementation of the performance assessment system. A basic plan for the system was completed in Academic Year 2001-2002 and implementation has been accomplished with full implementation occurring in Spring 2005. We still face issues with increasing the efficiency of distributing information generated by the system and automating the data base of information generated.

An issue related to this system is the existence of two sets of standards. While related, the Iowa Quality Teaching Standards and the Iowa State Standards based on the INTASC standards are not completely congruent. Debate exists in the program as to how to best inform students about both sets of standards and to prepare students to meet the IQTS. While not an insurmountable problem, confusion and discussion would be reduced if one set of standards were utilized.

The 2000-2001 annual reports requested input about unmet or met with concern standards from the previous review. Review of the communications between the DOE and ISU regarding the 1999 review indicate that initial unmets or met with concerns were changed to met following clarification. The attached memos document this claim. However some concerns were raised and ISU was asked to keep the state informed about these issues. These are addressed within.

A secondary major was discussed in these documents. A secondary major had been proposed and was not approved by the Faculty Senate. While CI is still considering modifying

168 and resubmitting the proposal, the pressures of completing implementation of the performance assessment system and a review of the elementary education major have precluded completion.

Instead, a new structure for teacher education was developed to better integrate teacher education options. This new structure has been described above. It consists of a revised teacher education committee with representatives from all departments offering teacher preparation and an Office of Teacher Education headed by an Associate Director. The new structure allows more effective and efficient communication of ideas among components of the system.

Changes relating to the secondary major have been addressed in other ways. Secondary students complete a pre-admission field experience that also contains an on-campus seminar,

CI280A. This combination helps to inform students of educational issues such as teaching approaches, individualization/differentiation for diversity, and classroom management.

The pedagogical components of the science and mathematics secondary education programs have been incorporated into CI. Increased attention to pedagogy and field experience has resulted (See course requirements for Mathematics and Science). In addition, an MAT in science education was created and is run by CI. Again this degree requires considerable field experiences. (See course requirements of MAT).

Concern about diversity in the secondary programs was raised. This has been addressed in CI 333. Students complete chapters dealing with diversity issues in this course. (See CI 33 syllabus.)

Concern was raised about common objectives across syllabi. In part, this concern is addressed by the performance assessment system. Syllabi identify the standards to which the course applies and the specific standard on which student will receive a performance indicator.

169 This requirement helps students see how each course fits into the matrix preparing them to achieve acceptable performance on each of the standards.

170 References:

Clift, R. T., & Brady, P., (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences, In

Cochran-Smith, M. & Ziechner, K. M. (Eds.), p. 309-424. Studying Teacher Education:

The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education, Washington, DC:

American Educational Research Association, and Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Ziechner, K. M. (Eds.), (2005) Studying Teacher Education: The Report

of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education, Washington, DC: American

Educational Research Association, and Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Darling-Hammond, L; Berry, B; & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification matter?

evaluating the evidence.: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 23 57-77.

Floden, R., & Meniketti, M. (2005). Research on the effects of coursework in the Arts and

Science and in the foundations of education. In Cochran-Smith, M. & Ziechner, K. M.

(Eds.), p. 261-208. Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on

Research and Teacher Education, Washington, DC: American Educational Research

Association, and Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life, Intelligence, 24, 79-

Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine, R. (1996). The effect of school resources on student

achievement. Review of Educational Research. 66, 361-396.

Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance,

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340-362.

Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job

performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.

171 Laczko-Kerr, I. L. & Berliner, D. C. (2002). The effectiveness of “Teach for America” and other

under-certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of harmful public

policy, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37), http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n37/.

Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher Quality: Understanding the Effectiveness of Teacher Attributes,

Economic Policy Institute: http/www.epinet.org/

Schmidt. F. L., Ones, D. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1992) Personnel selections. Annual Review of

Psychology, 43, 627-670.

Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers’ characteristics: research on the indicators of quality.

In Cochran-Smith, M. & Ziechner, K. M. (Eds.), p. 187-260. Studying Teacher

Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education,

Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, and Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

172 Chapter 9: Scope of Programs

The Scope of Programs can be found in Exhibit 9-1.

173 Acronyms:

 AESHM: Apparel, Educational Studies, and Hospitality Management  AG: College of Agriculture  AgEDSt: Agricultural Education and Studies  ArtDsgn: Art and Design  BUS: College of Business  CI: Curriculum and Instruction  DESN: College of Design  DPI: Designated Performance Indicator  EDUC: former College of Education  ENGL: English  ENGR: College of Engineering  FCS: College of Family and Consumer Sciences  FLL: Foreign Language and Literature  FSHN: Food Science and Human Nutrition  HDFS: Human Development and Family Studies  HHP: Health and Human Performance  INTASC: Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium  LAS: College of Liberal Arts and Science  Mus: Music  QTS: State of Iowa Quality Teacher Standards  TE: Teacher Education  TEPOT: Teacher Education Program Operations Team  UTEP: University Teacher Education Program  UTEPC: University Teacher Education Program Committee

174 List of Exhibits:

Chapter 1 Exhibit 1-1: “Iowa State University Catalog: Undergraduate and Graduate Courses and Programs 2005-2007” Exhibit 1-2: Mission Statement (2005-2010 Strategic Plan) Exhibit 1-3: Smith, L. Glenn (Leonard Glenn). Teacher Education at Iowa State University, 1868-1982. Ames: Research Institute for Studies in Education, Iowa State University, 1982. Exhibit 1-4: Annual Summary Reports on Practitioner Preparation

Chapter 3 Exhibit 3-1: University Teacher Education Program and Partial College of Human Sciences Organizational Chart Exhibit 3-2: UTEP Membership from 1999 to 2005 Exhibit 3-3: List of Members and Agendas for the Advisory Committees of the Respective Teacher Education Departments Exhibit 3-4: Examples of Practicing Teacher Involvement in Iowa State Teacher Preparation Exhibit 3-5: Fee Structure for Field Experiences Exhibit 3-6: ISU Budget for FY00-FY06 Exhibit 3-7: Course Syllabi for each of the Teacher Education Courses

Chapter 4 Exhibit 4-1: ISU Fact Book, 2004-05 Exhibit 4-2: George Washington Carver Teacher Education Program Exhibit 4-3: Minority Enrollment Summary in the Colleges of Education and Family and Consumer Sciences by Ethnicity and Gender, Fall 1999 – Summer 2005 Exhibit 4-4: Teacher Education Enrollment Summary by Ethnicity and Gender Exhibit 4-5: The Dean’s Leadership Seminar in Australia brochure Exhibit 4-6: The Dean’s International Leadership Seminar, the Global Citizenship Seminar in Salzburg, Austria brochure

Chapter 5 Exhibit 5-1: Vita from the Lecturers/Clinical Faculty Exhibit 5-2: 2004-2005 Teacher Education Examples of Research Exhibit 5-3: Vita from the Tenure-track Faculty Exhibit 5-4: A Selective Summary of Faculty Teaching Experience and Professional Development Activities Exhibit 5-5: Curriculum and Instruction Evaluation Rubric

Chapter 6 Exhibit 6-1: Courses in Each Licensure Area that Require Field Experiences Exhibit 6-2: Student Teaching Handbook Exhibit 6-3: List of Field Experience Placements

175 Exhibit 6-4: Final Student Teaching Evaluation Form Exhibit 6-5: Listing of Unsuccessful Student Teachers Exhibit 6-6: A Brief Description of Cohort Programs Exhibit 6-7: Spring 2003 Minutes for UTEPC Exhibit 6-8: Minutes of the Field Experiences Advisory Committee Exhibit 6-9: List of Supervisors Exhibit 6-10: The Agenda, Information Packets, and Attendance Lists for Previous Cooperating Teacher Workshops

Chapter 7 Exhibit 7-1: Elementary Education Major Four-Year Plan Exhibit 7-2: Early Childhood Education Major Four-Year Plan Exhibit 7-3: Master’s Course Options List

Chapter 8 Exhibit 8-1: Descriptive Materials about Performance Assessment System Exhibit 8-2: Overview of DPI Standards Addressed in Each Licensure Area Course Exhibit 8-3: ISU Teacher Preparation Reports Exhibit 8-4: CI Evaluation Form and Other Departmental Evaluation Forms Exhibit 8-5: Advisory Board Directory Exhibit 8-6: CI External Review Report Exhibit 8-7: University Educator Survey, August 2004 Exhibit 8-8: Copies of the New and Old Student Teaching and Supervisors’ Handbooks Exhibit 8-9: Fall 2005 State Department of Education Evaluation form Exhibit 8-10: The Evaluation Criteria for Each Individual Student Who Graduated in a UTEP Option and Were Recommended for Iowa Licensure

Chapter 9 Exhibit 9-1: Scope of Programs – Exhibit Sheets for Each Licensure Area and Endorsement