1
OHIO UNIVERSITY'S
UNIT FOR THE PREPARATION OF EDUCATION PROFESSIONALS
CONCEPTUAL CORE
Overview
The Unit’s Conceptual Core represents the theoretical and empirical knowledge upon
which the Unit’s educator preparation programs are grounded. It is characterized by the
phrase, “we prepare leader-educators and practitioners who share our commitment to serve
society responsibly as change agents in meeting diverse human and social needs and engage
in lifelong learning.” This phrase makes reference to the four domains of knowledge that
constitute the conceptual core. These domains are defined below; in the subsequent sections
of the document each domain is described in greater detail and the knowledge-based
supporting each domain is presented.
 Leader-Educators and Practitioners: the Unit prepares expert, ethical and reflective
leader-educators and practitioners and decision-makers who are committed to holistic
learning, and engage in collaborative and professional service to society.
 Change Agents: the Unit prepares leader-educators and practitioners who address the
changing human and social needs through inquiry, research, assessment, critical
thinking, problem-solving, and proactive use of technologies.
 Diversity: the Unit prepares leader-educators and practitioners who appreciate the
variety of human cultural expression, employ multiple approaches to inquiry, use
knowledge and practice for the benefit of a diverse society, and promote social equity
and justice for effective civic engagement.
2
 Lifelong Learning: the Unit prepares leader-educators and practitioners who engage
in self-reflection and professional development for continuous personal growth, and
who inspire such practices in those whom they serve
Leader Educators and Practitioners
The Unit prepares expert, ethical and reflective leader-educators and practitioners
who are committed to holistic learning and engage in collaborative and
professional service to society.
Introduction
Effective professional educators possess specialized knowledge and skills (Jarolimek
& Foster, 1996) as well as dispositions that encourage dedicated, ethical, and collaborative
application of such knowledge and skills (Katz, 1993; Riehl, 2000). Professional practice
grounded in this combination of knowledge, skills, and dispositions fits with contemporary
definitions of leadership, such as that offered by Drath and Paulus (1994, p. 4): "Leadership
is the process of making sense of what people are doing together so that people will
understand and be committed,” and that offered by Michael Fullan (2002), asserting that
effective leaders change what people value and how people work together. They make
important changes through the construction of perspectives, processes, programs, and
theories (e.g. Larson & Murtadha, 2003).Adding to the sense-making and change functions
of leadership are the dimensions of responsibility (e.g., Ciulla, 2006), expertise (e.g., Mott,
2002), and power-sharing (e.g., Hoerr, 1996).
3
Knowledge Base
The discussion below considers each of the five dimensions of leadership upon which
the Unit bases its programs. Then Table 1 lists the theoretical and empirical knowledge
supporting these dimensions as well as related readings that are included on syllabi from
various courses offered by faculty in the Unit.
Leadership as ethical responsibility. Although one thread in the literature on
business administration focuses on the moral import of leadership (e.g., Gini, 1998) the
literature on leadership in schools invariably touches on its moral character (e.g., Duignan,
2012; Sockett, 1993; Starrat, 2004). The formative role that education plays in the
cultivation of each rising generation and its position as the major institution for the
construction and maintenance of democratic communities imbues educators with
considerable power and the associated responsibility to use that power for the good of
individuals, communities, and society (e.g., Beane & Apple, 2007; Purpel, 1989).
Educational leadership—whether provided by teachers, principals, superintendents, or
counselors—calls forth an ethic of care because of its direct engagement with vulnerable
members of society who are compelled to participate in the schooling enterprise (e.g.,
Noddings, 2005). An ethic of care, moreover, requires leader-educators to direct their efforts
toward the well-being of individual students and the health of communities (e.g., McBee,
2007; Theobald, 1997). Arguably, such care-giving can occur only when educators seek to
redress the social injustices that constrain opportunities for children from some groups and
with certain characteristics (e.g., Kozol, 1992; Kozol 2012). As Jenlink (2001) notes,
effective educational leaders bring skills of social critique and scholarly inquiry to bear on
cultural patterns of the educational system and community in which they serve.
4
The Unit provides a variety of experiences—both in course work and in the field—
through which candidates can come to understand what leadership means when it is
grounded in an ethic of care. Faculty members often use case studies as a way to assist
candidates in thinking through ethical dilemmas such as those that often confront educators
throughout the course of their careers. Participation in classrooms and schools in
Appalachian Ohio, moreover, enables candidates to observe firsthand the educational
consequences of social inequities and to assist their cooperating teachers in finding ways to
improve the life-chances of the students in their charge.
Leadership as expertise. Like other professionals such as doctors and lawyers,
educators acquire and use specialized knowledge to inform their practice; but unlike other
professionals, educators’ function is to share a significant amount of their knowledge—
namely their knowledge of academic content—with their “clients” (Covaleskie & Howley,
1994; Gutstein, 2006). Among teachers in particular, expertise entails knowledge not just
about how to teach, but also knowledge about what to teach (e.g. Hansen, 2011).
Increasingly, as teachers take on mentoring roles providing leadership to less experienced
teachers, they must also make decisions about how and what to teach their peers (e.g. Taylor,
2008). Horn (2001) points out that practicing teachers seldom encounter educational theory
in their professional development experience and that “without theory as a referent the
necessary dialectical reflection on practice cannot effectively take place” (p. 358).
Neither pedagogical nor content knowledge is static. Knowledge of academic content
increases and changes, thereby requiring teachers to participate in on-going professional
development related to their disciplines (e.g., Ellis, 2007; Moyer-Packenham, Bolyard, Oh,
Kridler, & Salkind, 2006; Salzman & Snodgrass, 2003). While relatively few P-12 teachers
5
become intellectual leaders in these disciplines, the extensiveness of their knowledge has a
direct bearing on the quality of the knowledge they convey to their students (e.g., Shulman,
1987; Summers, 1994).
Knowledge about how to teach (or provide guidance, or administer school programs)
also evolves over time in response to an emerging body of research in these fields. Educators
keep current with expanding knowledge and develop their expertise further through ongoing
professional development that includes reflective engagement with their craft. Like other
professionals, their effectiveness as practitioners depends on their ability to combine craft
knowledge and scientific knowledge in ways that respond to the circumstances they confront
(e.g., Salzman, 2006; Wood, 2007). Among these circumstances is subject matter, as research
on teacher leader efforts to mediate instructional reform has shown that the challenges that
teachers meet in improving instruction differ among subjects taught (Hoang, 2008).
According to Theoharis (2009) knowledge of social justice issues is developed through
professional development programs that emphasize the importance of inclusiveness and
connectedness in improving the core learning context—which embeds assessment and the
learning environment, in consideration of interactions among the learning task, the student,
and the teacher.
Programs in the Unit prepare candidates to be knowledgeable about relevant subject
matter, pedagogy, and the intersection of the two—what’s often termed “pedagogical content
knowledge.” In addition, as is discussed in the section on lifelong learning, the Unit’s
programs show candidates the importance of on-going engagement with professional
development, and the programs cultivate habits of mind that encourage candidates to inquire
6
and reflect about the various types of knowledge that have a bearing on their professional
work.
Leadership as power-sharing. Although theorists often prefer to focus on the
differences between (even closely related) theories of leadership, several theoretical
perspectives converge in their concern for power-sharing. Theories of “democratic
leadership” (e.g., Starrat, 2001), “teacher leadership” (e.g., Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996),
“participatory leadership” (e.g., Schlechty, 1990), “leadership substitutes” (e.g., Kerr &
Jermier, 1978; Schriesheim, 1997), and “distributed leadership” (e.g., Spillane, 2006) all treat
leadership as a function rather than a role. And they all maintain that, when leaders share
power, they increase, rather than vitiate the overall power in an organization (e.g., Conger,
1989; Pearce & Conger, 2003). This viewpoint is grounded in the belief that the most
meaningful type of power within organizations such as schools and school districts is “power
to” rather than “power over” (e.g., Lukes, 2005). “Power to,” in this view, involves the
collaborative exercise of power, which some refer to as “power with.”
“Power to” denotes the capacity of an individual or an organization to accomplish its
goals. In schools, teachers who give power to their students increase their students’ capacities
for learning, decision-making, and self-direction, thereby providing students with the power
to address life’s challenges in meaningful and productive ways. Similarly, principals who
empower teachers enable them to exercise sufficient autonomy to act on behalf of students’
learning. Arguably, schools that promote this type of power-sharing expand the resources
available to them for accomplishing needed changes and making significant improvements in
performance (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000).
7
Endorsing this perspective on capacity building, the Unit engages candidates in
significant and meaningful learning that increases their capabilities as decision-makers,
educational planners, and self-directed professionals. Practical experiences that confer upon
candidates the “power to” take place in early field experiences, professional internships, and,
perhaps most dramatically, in the professional development school partnerships. Faculty also
build candidates’ capacities for self-directed learning by giving assignments that require
candidates to think critically, solve problems, and develop innovative products.
Leadership as sense-making. As suggested above, leaders can build capacity for
understanding, critiquing, and reinventing the world by sharing power. This insight fits
closely with the view of leadership as sense-making (Drath& Paulus, 1994; Weick, 2001).
Theories of organizational sense-making, however, extend beyond structural considerations,
such as those relating to power dynamics, to explain how participants interpret organizational
events in ways productive of shared understandings. Bolman and Deal (2008) view these
understandings as part of the fabric of organizational culture, along with the norms, rituals,
and celebrations that contribute to organizational stability. From their perspective, cultural
change is difficult because organizational culture, by its nature, tends to sustain traditions.
Weick (2001), by contrast, posits a more dynamic view of sense-making—akin, in
fact, to Piaget’s ideas about accommodation and assimilation. He suggests that the old and
the new are inevitably in conversation such that the old often provides participants with
insights that help them interpret the new. Curiously, of course, if what’s new is
incomprehensible in terms of what’s already known (i.e., the old), then existing ways of
seeing the world can actually promote misconceptions. As Weick (2001, p. 356) puts it,
“retained knowledge is partly a useful guide to the future and partly a misleading guide.”
8
These two perspectives on organizational (e.g., school) culture provide conceptual
tools with which faculty and clinical supervisors can assist candidates to move from their
pre-existing beliefs (e.g., about schools, teaching, rural and urban communities) to richer and
more inclusive beliefs. Guiding candidates as they work to understand traditions, while at the
same time helping them resist the temptation to become prisoners of traditions, is subtle and
difficult work, but it is absolutely necessary if educator preparation hopes to change how
schooling functions in the wider society.
Leadership as cultural change. Although the literature on leadership for change in
schools offers inconclusive claims about the difficulty with which change is accomplished,
most theorists and researchers recognize that change is necessary—at the very least as a
mechanism for adapting to dynamics in the external environment. Intentional change,
however, is more than adaptation because it embeds a direction (or vision) of a better future.
Indeed, a great deal of the prescriptive literature on leadership focuses on the need for the
leader to create, communicate, and sustain a “vision” to guide improvement (e.g., Haydon,
2007).
Improvement of the culture of a classroom, school, or district inevitably entails a
determination about what future state is valued and by whom. For a number of years, for
example, policy makers have paid attention to increases in academic achievement as the
single vision of an improved future state for public schools (e.g., Daly, 2009). Many teachers,
administrators, and parents, however, see other outcomes—democratic engagement;
community connections; and cultivation of independent thinking, such as “theorizing back”
(Tuck, 2009, p. 111)—as equally or even more important (e.g., Gerstl-Pepin, C. & Aiken,
J.A., 2009; Ryan & Rottmann, 2009). Debates about such matters have diminished in the
9
“era of accountability” (e.g., Glass, 2008), but leader-educators can make sure that such
debates continue to play a vital role in the life of a school and its surrounding community
(Covaleskie & Howley, 1994). According to several writers, schools are one of the few
remaining sites for local democratic action (e.g., Harkavy& Hartley, 2009; McNeil, 2002).
As a result, the discussions that take place around school outcomes contribute to wider
debate about the desired future state of neighborhoods, communities, and society generally
(Alexander, 1999; Basu, 2006; Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Parker, 2006).
The Unit appreciates schools’ role in safeguarding democratic institutions in the
United States and therefore prepares its candidates to think about and act on a wider set of
issues than just technical matters about which educational practices lead to higher student
achievement (see Table 1 below for readings that illustrate this perspective). In fact,
commitment to this view of educators’ potential influence informs the conceptual framework
so significantly that an entire separate consideration is given to change-agency and the
cultivation of change agents.
Table 1: Knowledge Base—Leadership Dimensions
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
Argyris, C. (1993).
Knowledge for action: A
guide to overcoming
barriers to organizational
change. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Angelle, P. S., & Schmid,
B. (2007). School structure
and the identity of teacher
leaders: Perspectives of
principals and
teachers. Journal of School
Leadership6, 771-799.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T.
E. (2008). Reframing
organizations: Artistry,
choice, and leadership (4th
ed.). San Francisco, CA:
John Wiley & Sons.
Chrispeels, J. H. (Eds.).
(2004). Learning to lead
together: The promise and
challenge of sharing
leadership. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Altrichter, H. (2005). The
role of the "professional
community" in action
research. Educational
Action Research, 13(1), 1126.
Bennie, W. (2009). On
becoming a leader.
Philadelphia, PA: Basic.
10
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K.
(2009). Shaping school
culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes,
and promises (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Firestone, W., & Martinez,
C. (2007). Districts, teacher
leaders, and distributed
leadership: Changing
instructional
practice. Leadership and
Policy in Schools, 6(1), 335.
Cambroon-McCabe, N.
Cunningham, L., Harvey, J.,
& Off, R. (2005).
Superintendent’s field book:
A guide for leaders of
learning. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher
leadership as distributed
leadership: Heresy, fantasy
or possibility? School
Leadership &
Management, 23(3), 313324.
Graczewski, C., Knudson,
J., Holtzman, D. J. (2009).
Instructional leadership in
practice: What does it look
like, and what influence
does it have? Journal of
Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 14(1), 7296.
Hoy, W. K., Hannum, J.,
& Tschannen-Moran, M.
(1998). Organizational
climate and student
achievement: A
parsimonious and
longitudinal view. Journal
of School Leadership, 8(4),
336-359.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C.
G.; (2001). Educational
administration: Theory,
research, and practice (6th
ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Higher
Education.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D.
(2008). Linking leadership
to student learning: The
contributions of leader
efficacy. Educational
Administration Quarterly
Journal, 44(4), 496-528.
Lieberman, A., Saxl, E. R.,
& Miles, M. (2000).
Teacher leadership:
Ideology and practice. In
The Jossey-Bass reader on
educational leadership (pp.
348-365). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Little, J. W. (2000).
Assessing the prospects for
teacher leadership. The
Jossey-Bass reader on
educational leadership (pp.
390-399). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mangin, M. M., &
Stoelinga, S. R. (2008).
Teacher leadership: What it
is and why it matters. In M.
M. Mangin& S. R.
Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective
teacher leadership: Using
research to inform and
reform. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Murphy, J. (2005).
Connecting teacher
leadership and school
improvement. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Pellicer, L. O. (2008)
Caring enough to lead:
How reflective practice
leads to moral leadership
(3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Leithwood, K., & Mascall,
B. (2008). Collective
leadership effects on
student achievement.
Educational Administration
Quarterly, 44(4), 529-561.
Reeves, D. B. (2009).
Mangin, M. M. (2005).
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L.
(2004). Teacher leadership.
San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., &
11
Theoretical Foundations
Leading change in your
school: How to conquer
myths, build commitment,
and get results.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Empirical Foundations
Distributed leadership and
the culture of schools:
Teacher leaders' strategies
for gaining access to
classrooms. Journal of
School Leadership, 15(4),
456-484.
Spillane, J. P. (2006).
Valli, L., van Zee, E. H.,
Distributed leadership. San Rennert-Ariev, P., Mikesha,
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. J., Catlett-Muhammad, S.,
& Roy, P. (2006). Initiating
and sustaining a culture of
inquiry in a teacher
leadership
program. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 33(3),
97-114.
Strike, K. A. (2007). Ethical
leadership in schools:
Creating community in an
environment of
accountability. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
McNulty, B. (2005).
School leadership that
works: From research to
results. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
McEwan, E. (2003). Seven
steps to effective
instructional leadership (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Mertler, C. A. (2012).
Action research: Improving
schools and empowering
educators (3rd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The
fifth discipline: The art and
practice of the learning
organization. New York,
NY: Doubleday.
Spillane, J., & Diamond, J.
(2007). Distributed
leadership in practice. New
York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Wheatley, M. (2001).
Leadership and the new
science: Learning about
organization from an
orderly universe. San
Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership
in organizations. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
12
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Hall.
Zepeda, S. J. (2007). The
principal as instructional
leader: A handbook for
supervisors. (2nd ed.).
Larchmont, NY: Eye on
Education.
Change Agents
The Unit prepares leader-educators and practitioners who address changing
human and social needs through inquiry, research, assessment, critical thinking,
problem-solving, and proactive use of technology.
Introduction
Over the latter half of the twentieth century and continuing into the twenty-first, the shift
from an industrial to a post-industrial economy and from an era of analog and print
communications media to an era of digital media (what some refer to as “the information age”)
has changed human experience in many ways—how we work, do business, communicate,
entertain, and how we teach and learn. Emerging technologies and shifts in global economic
relations have produced changes in political, social, and cultural domains. These accelerating
changes have affected dominant and marginalized groups in starkly different ways (Aronowitz &
DiFazio, 2010; Karoly, 2004). Their eventual impact on individuals, cultural groups, geographic
regions, and the world at large—as benefits, depredations, or both at once—is yet to be
determined (Bauman, 1998; Eller, 2008; Friedman, 2007).
According to some commentators and policy groups (e.g., Friedman, 2007; Partnership
for 21st Century Skills, 2009), the twenty-first century—an era of outsourcing and
“offshoring”—requires all nations to adapt to the challenges of a “flattened” world. In this view,
contemporary society has changed and continues to change exponentially, but schools are hard-
13
pressed, often unable, to keep up (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2010). Although many of today’s
students live in a world that is extremely fast-paced, constantly changing, technologically
mediated, and media-saturated, many of our schools continue to provide instruction through an
outdated “factory-model” of education based on principles of scientific-management (Shaw,
2004). Preparing students for adult life in this century—for adaptation and inventiveness—
demands a different approach to education, one in which teachers function as change agents
within their own schools and school-communities (e.g., Owens, 2008).
For some commentators the most salient changes for educators in the twenty-first century
relate more to issues of diversity and distributive justice than to economic and technological
innovations (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Sleeter, 2001). Notably, these commentators claim that
demographic changes in this century will require schools to become more responsive to cultural
and linguistic diversity (Balfanz, 2009) and more critical in regard to representations of normalcy
(Semali, 2001). Furthermore, some writers claim that the major focus of educators’ change
agency ought to be the creation of a future in which greater social justice prevails (e.g., Giroux,
2013; Mullen, 2008; Simon, 1992).
Despite the recent resurgence of interest in change and the role of education in
accommodating and shaping change, the concern is far from new. Progressive educators
throughout the twentieth century saw change agency as the fundamental work of educators
(Freire, 1970, Neumann, 2003). John Dewey (1915), for example, responded to the social
transformations around him: “It is radical conditions which have changed,” he wrote, “and only a
radical change in education suffices. . . . Knowledge is no longer an immobile solid; it has been
liquefied.” Dewey believed the aim of education was not the production of a labor force, but the
14
enrichment of the individual and society by developing each child’s “social power and insight”
(p. 12).
The Unit grounds its programs on what progressive educators such as Dewey (1915),
Jerome Bruner (1977), and many others advocated—learning by doing—a curriculum designed
to enable students to understand and draw effectively on their own past experiences through an
active engagement with new experiences structured to develop their commitment and ability to
effect positive change at the classroom, school, and community levels. Other educator
preparation programs also embrace change agency as part of their conceptual framework, and
reports about some of these initiatives have informed our work to define this emphasis within our
conceptual core (e.g., Catapano, 2006; Cooper, 2006; Donnell & Harper, 2005; Ford & CoballesVega, 2001; Lane, Lacefield-Parachini, & Isken, 2003; McCay, Flora, Riley, & Hamilton, 2001;
Price &Valli, 2005; Shosh & Zales, 2007).
Knowledge Base
Although salient perspectives on change may not be fully compatible with one another,
the conceptual framework endorses the value of multiple (and even competing) perspectives.
Indeed, the intellectual work of the Unit requires a pluralistic view of truth. At the same time, the
need for coherence requires the framework to emphasize the knowledge and performances that
are common to multiple perspectives.
With respect to change agency, we have identified the knowledge and skills that bridge
the relevant perspectives and on which we are able to ground our educator preparation programs.
This knowledge base (i.e., combination of knowledge and skills) emphasizes inquiry, research,
critical thinking, problem-solving, assessment, and the proactive use of technology. The
literature on educational needs for the twenty-first century suggests that this knowledge base is
15
necessary for self-determination and adaptation to change in a changing world (Lemke,
Coughlin, Thadani, &Martin, 2003; Wallis &Steptoe, 2006). Similarly, the literature on teaching
for social justice calls for critical inquiry and informed action (e.g., Ayers, Kumishiro, Meiners,
Quinn, & Stovall, 2004; Freedman, 2007; Marshall & Oliva, 2010; Zamudio, Rios, & Jaime,
2008). This call for attention to critical inquiry and informed action emphasizes attention, not
just to cognitive skills, but to dispositions, such as open-mindedness, willingness to listen, and
willingness to take a stance (Veugelers, 2001; Weinbaum, Allen, Blythe, Simon, Seidel, &
Rubin, 2004), associated with effective change agency.
Whereas the understanding of various rationales for change and of potentially desirable
changes (i.e., reforms) provides important grounding for our educator preparation programs, so,
too, does knowledge about the change process itself. Knowledge of the general principles of
change as well as the application of those principles to schools and communities is particularly
relevant to our preparation of candidates for the role of change agent. The writings of Fullan
(e.g., 2007 and 2011), Hall and Hord (e.g., 2005), and Rogers (e.g., 2003) provide a strong
theoretical framework that guides our efforts to prepare educators for this role. Knowledge about
change as a social and organizational process informs these efforts; and works that illustrate
some guiding perspectives are presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Knowledge Base—Change Agency
Theoretical Foundations
Fullan, M. (2007). The new
meaning of educational
change (4th ed.). New York,
NY: Teachers College
Press.
Empirical Foundations
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H.C.
Adams, M., Blumenfield,
(2000). Instructional policy W., Castenada, C.,
and classroom performance: Hackman, H., & Peters, M.
Mathematics reform in
(Eds.) (2010). Readings for
California. Teachers
diversity and social justice
College Record, 102(2),
(2nd ed.).New York, NY:
296-345.
Routledge.
16
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Fullan, M. (2011). Change
leader: Learning to do what
matters most. San
Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Church, K. (2010). A
course exploration: Guiding
instruction to prepare
students as change agents in
educational reform. InSight:
InSight: A Journal of
Scholarly Teaching, 5, 1526. Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com.pr
oxy.library.ohiou.edu/eds/p
dfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=86
0d6de4-5dba-41ae-adc629efa6362ab5%40sessionm
gr13&vid=4&hid=105
Fullan, M. (2000).
Leadership for the twentyfirst century: breaking the
bonds of dependency. In M.
Fullan (Ed.), The JosseyBass reader on educational
leadership (pp. 169-182).
San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Hall, G.E., &Hord, S.M.
(2005). Implementing
change: Patterns,
principles, and potholes (2nd
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Cuban, L. (1984). How
teachers taught: Constancy
and change in American
classrooms, 18801890.New York, NY:
Longman.
Fullan, M. (2007).
Understanding change. In
The Jossey-Bass reader on
educational leadership (2nd.
ed.) (pp. 159-164). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers
in group dynamics:
Concept, method and reality
in social science: Social
equilibria and social
change. Indianapolis, IN:
Bobbs-Merrill.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., &
McElheron-Hopkins, C.
(2006). The development
and testing of a school
improvement model. School
Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 17(4), 441464.
Howard, A., & GaztambideFernandez, R. (2010).
Educating elites: Class
privilege and educational
advantage. Washington,
DC: Rowman & Littlefield.
Murphy, K.P. (2007). The
eye of the beholder: The
interplay of social and
cognitive components in
change, Educational
Psychologist, 42(1), 41-53.
Partnership for 21st Century
Skills (2009). Building 21st
Century skills. Retrieved
from
http://www.21stcenturyskill
s.org/route21/index.php
Johnson, S.M. (1996).
Leading to change The
challenge of the new
superintendency. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lyons, C.A., & Pinnell, G.
(2001). Systems for change
in literacy education.
Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
17
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Rogers, E.M. (2003).
Diffusion of innovations (5th
ed.). New York, NY: Free
Press.
Marzano, R., Waters, T.,
and McNulty, B. (2005).
School leadership that
works: From research to
results. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Sarason, S.B. (1996).
Revisiting “The Culture of
the School and the Problem
of Change. “New York,
NY: Teachers College
Press.
Sclechty, P. (2004). Shaking
up the schoolhouse: How to
support and sustain
educational innovation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merz, C., & Furman, G. C.
(1997). Community and
schools: Promise and
paradox. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Noddings, N. (2012). (3rd
Ed.). Philosophy of
education. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Spring, J. (2013).
Deculturalization and the
struggle for equity: A brief
history of the education of
dominated cultures in the
United States. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
At a more granular level, change occurs as a result of individual and interpersonal
processes. From this vantage, meaningful learning is itself a kind of change (e.g., Swann, 2012);
and one of the major aims of our programs is to prepare candidates to function as instructional
change agents (i.e., facilitators of learning). Therefore, the extensive theoretical and empirical
literature on inquiry, research, problem-solving, and critical thinking serves as a source of
knowledge upon which our programs can base curricula and assessments. Table 3 shows major
works on inquiry, research, problem-solving, and critical thinking that provide grounding for our
programs; it also presents an illustrative list of related texts assigned to candidates in educator
preparation courses.
18
Table 3: Knowledge Base—Inquiry, Research, Problem Solving, Critical Thinking
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Apple, M.W., &Beane, J.A. Bhattacharyya, S., Volk, T., Brooks, J.G., & Brooks,
(2007). Democratic
& Lumpe, A. (2009).
M.G. (1999). In search of
schools: Lessons in
The influence of an
understanding: The case for
powerful education (2nd
extensive inquiry-based
constructivist classrooms.
ed.). Portsmouth, NH:
field experience on preAlexandria, VA: ASCD.
Heinemann.
service elementary student
teachers’ science teaching
beliefs. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 20(3),
199-218.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of
Llewellen, D. (2002).
Fresch, E. T. (2004).
meaning. Cambridge, MA:
Inquire within:
Connecting children with
Harvard University Press.
Implementing inquiry-based children: Motivating
science standards.
students for inquiry and
Thousand Oaks, CA:
action. Portsmouth, NH:
Corwin Press.
Heinemann.
Egan, K. (1997). The
Pinarbasi, T., Canpolat, N., Martin, R., Sexton, C., &
educated mind: How
Bayrakceken, S., & Geban, Gerlovitch, J. (2009).
cognitive tools shape our
O. (2006). An Investigation Teaching science for all
understanding. Chicago, IL: of effectiveness of
children: Inquiry lessons
University of Chicago
conceptual change textfor constructing
Press.
oriented instruction on
understanding (5th ed.).
students' understanding of
Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn
solution concepts.
and Bacon.
Research in Science
Education, 36(4), 313-335.
Shure, M.B. (1992). I can
Eisner, E.W. (1982).
Weinbaum, A., Allen, D.,
problem solve: Kindergarten
Cognition and curriculum:
Blythe, T., Simon, K.,
and primary grades.
A basis for deciding what to Seidel, S.; & Rubin, C.
Champaign, IL: Research
teach. New York, NY:
(2010). Teaching as
Press.
Longman.
inquiry: Asking hard
questions to improve
practice and student
achievement. New York,
NY: Teachers College
Press.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A.
Sturtevant, E. G., & Linek,
(1973). Human problem
W.M. (2004) Content
solving. Englewood Cliffs,
literacy: An inquiry-based
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
case approach. Upper
Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill Prentice
Hall.
19
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Perkins, D. (1992). Smart
schools: From training
memories to educating
minds. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A.,
Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog,
W.A. (1982).
Accommodation of a
scientific conception:
Toward a theory of
conceptual change. Science
Education, 66, 211-227.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind
in society: The development
of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind
as action. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Because data about performance (e.g., individual learning, program effectiveness)
represent a necessary foundation for improvement efforts, change agency requires knowledge
about and skills in using a variety of assessment strategies. Contemporary practice in schools,
moreover, increasingly requires educators to understand measurement concepts and to make use
of an expanding array of performance and contextual data (Popham, 2003; Stiggins, 1991;
Trevisan, 2002).
Addressing this emerging need, the Unit deployed a process involving multiple
stakeholders (i.e., Design Team 1 of the “Communications and Connections”) to identify key
assessment concepts. The design team determined that the following conceptual domains
represented important knowledge on which educational practice should be based: (1) culture bias
20
in assessment; (2) consequences of assessment (social justice of assessment, doubles back to
connect to concepts relating to the philosophy of assessment); (3) technologically mediated
assessment; (4) assessment design and development (writing test items, developing authentic
activities, writing rubrics, grading); (5) use of assessment to improve instruction (analyzing,
interpreting, and using standardized test data, short-cycle assessments, and classroom
assessments); (6) methods for assessment of cognitive, affective, psychomotor, and language
development; (7) assessment applications for identifying special needs; (8) assessment as a basis
for differentiating instruction; (9) assessment applications in teaching science; (10) philosophy of
assessment (the nature of assessment, reasons for assessment, ethical issues related to
assessment, when assessment counts, what counts as assessment, how compliance fits with and
sometimes confounds assessment); (11) types of assessment and their purposes (the distinction
between an activity and an assessment; curriculum-based assessment—e.g., rubrics; classroom
assessment, short-cycle assessment, and teacher-developed assessment—standardized or other
high-stakes assessment, and value-added assessment); (12) measurement concepts (mean,
standard deviation, standard scores, confidence bands, connections between assessment data and
instructional “prescriptions”); and (13) teacher assessment (using assessment as the basis for
self-reflection and improvement as a teacher, methods of self-assessment, working with feedback
from others—supervisors, peers, and students). Published literature supporting these domains
and their inclusion in educator preparation programs is presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Knowledge Base—Assessment
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
Campbell, D. M. (2000).
Portfolio and performance
assessment in teacher
education. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Andrade, H., Du Y., &
Wang, X. (2008). Putting
rubrics to the test: The
effect of a model, criteria
generation, and rubric-
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Bigge, J.L., Stump, C. S., Spagna,
M.E., & Silberman, R.K., (1999).
Curriculum, assessment and
instruction for students with
disabilities. Belmont, CA:
21
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
referenced self-assessment
on elementary school
students' writing.
Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 27(2),
3-13.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames
of mind. New York: Basic
Books.
Hart, D. (1994). Authentic
assessment: A handbook for
educators. Menlo Park, CA:
Addison-Wesley.
International Society for
Technology in Education
(ISTE). (2002). National
educational technology
standards for teachers:
Preparing teachers to use
technology. Danvers, MA:
ISTE.
Johnston, P. H., & Guthrie,
J. (2008). Theory and
research into practice:
Principles for literacy
assessment. Reading
Research Quarterly, 40(2),
256-267.
Linn, R. L. (2000).
Assessments and
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Wadworth Publishing Company.
MacDonald, M. (2007).
Toward formative
assessment: the use of
pedagogical
documentation in early
elementary classrooms.
Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 22(2), 232-242.
Sato, M., Wei, R.C., &
Darling-Hammond, L.
(2008). Improving teachers'
assessment practices
through professional
development: The case of
National Board
Certification. American
Educational Research
Journal, 45(3), 669-700.
Schnellert, L.M., Butler, D.
L., & Higginson, S. K.
(2008). Co-constructors of
data, co-constructors of
meaning: Teacher
professional development in
an age of accountability.
Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(3), 725-750.
Stiggins, R. J. (1991).
Relevant classroom
assessment training for
teachers. Educational
Measurement: Issues and
Practice, 10(1), 7-12.
Cavuto, G. J. (2003). Naturalistic,
classroom-based reading
assessment: A problem solving
approach. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Supovitz, J. (2009).
Can high stakes testing
Foster-Johnson, L., & Dunlap, G.
(1993). Using functional
Coiro, J. (2009). Rethinking online
reading assessment. Educational
Leadership, 66(6), 59-63.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007).
Checking for understanding:
Formative assessment techniques
for your classroom. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
22
Theoretical Foundations
accountability. Educational
Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
Empirical Foundations
leverage educational
improvement? Prospects
from the last decade of
testing and accountability
reform. Journal of
Educational Change, 10(23), 211-227.
McMillan, J. H.
Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., &
(2001). Essential assessment Sanders, W. L. (1997).
concepts for teachers and
Teacher and classroom
administrators. Thousand
context effects on student
Oaks, CA: Corwin
achievement: Implications
Publishing Company.
for teacher evaluation.
Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education,
11, 57–67.
Mertler, C. A. (2001).
Shepard, L. A.,
Designing scoring rubrics
Hammerness, K., Darlingfor your
Hammond, L., & Rust, F.
classroom. Practical
(with Snowden, J. B.,
Assessment, Research &
Gordon, E., Gutierrez, C., &
Evaluation, 7(25). Retrieved Pacheo, A.). (2006).
August 11, 2009 from
Assessment. In L. Darlinghttp://PAREonline.net/getvn Hammond & J. Bransford
.asp?v=7&n=25
(Eds.), Preparing teachers
for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and
be able to do
(pp. 275–326). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2004)
What are value-added
models estimating and what
does this imply for
statistical practice?
Journal of Educational and
Behavioral Statistics, 29(1),
121-130.
Sadler, D. R. (1989).
Formative assessment and
the design of instructional
systems. Instructional
Science, 18(2), 119-144.
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
assessment to develop effective,
individualized interventions for
challenging behaviors. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 25, 44-50.
McKenna, M. C., & Stahl, K. A.
D. (2009). Assessment for reading
instruction (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
McLoughlin, J., & Lewis, R. (2008).
Assessing special students (7th ed.).
Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.
Mertler, C. G. (2003). Classroom
assessment: A practical guide for
educators. Los Angeles: Pyrczak
Publishing.
Mokhtari, K., Kymes, A., &
Edwards, P. (2008). Assessing the
new literacies of online reading
comprehension: An informative
interview with W. Ian O’Byrne,
Lisa Zawilinski, J. Greg McVerry,
23
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
and Donald J. Leu at the
University of Connecticut. The
Reading Teacher, 62(4), 354-357.
Reeves, D. (Ed.). (2007). Ahead of
the curve: The power of
assessment to transform teaching
and learning. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.
Slavin, R. (2007). Educational
research in an age of
accountability. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J. A,
Chappius, J., & Chappius, S.
(2006). Classroom assessment for
student learning: Doing it rightusing it well. Portland, OR:
Educational Testing Service.
Walker W. L. (2005). What every
teacher needs to know about
assessment. Larchmont, NY: Eye
on Education.
An emerging literature suggests that successful educational change entails the
engagement of all students with appropriate technologies (Appel, 2007; Norris, 2001).
Technologies of various sorts increasingly play a role in the lives of students and their families.
Nevertheless, despite the pervasiveness of technologies in daily life, educators have been slow to
incorporate technological applications into their instruction in meaningful ways (e.g., Cuban,
2001).
At present, following more than 20 years of advocacy and teacher education,
commentators continue to report on the potential of computers and related technologies to bring
about not only improved instruction, but radically different, progressive educational change (e.g.,
Giroux, 2013). However, many teachers continue to integrate technology primarily in superficial
24
ways (Becker, 2000; Cuban, 2001; Kim & Bagaka, 2005)that fail to recognize the needs of a new
generation that includes both students who have grown up in an environment saturated with
digital tools that encourage multi-tasking and non-linear thinking (Jones, 2012) and students
whose circumstances—impoverished rural or urban (as opposed to suburban)—exclude them
from any but the most rudimentary elements of the digital environment (Becker, 2000; Kim &
Bagaka, 2005). Effectively addressing vital issues related to media and technology is crucial to
public education, which otherwise risks relinquishing its formative role in society (Westgate,
2010).
Effective integration of technology requires a strategy in which instructional design
considerations take priority, and technological applications serve as the tools, rather than as the
drivers, of design (e.g., Johnson & Maddux, 2003; Merrill, 2007; Summerville & Reid-Griffin,
2008). Moreover, the effectiveness of this strategy is closely tied to the prospect that educators
will be able to “level the playing field” with respect to access to technology (Gorski, 2009;
Muffoletto, 1994). Unless children from all groups are able to benefit from consistent, highquality instruction, technologically mediated design will tend to exacerbate rather than eliminate
achievement gaps. These premises as well as perspectives on more technical matters regarding
technology integration are represented in the Unit’s knowledge base (see Table 5).
Table 5: Knowledge Base—Integration of Technology
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
Creighton, T. (2002). The
principal as technology
leader. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Becker, H. J. (2000).
Findings from the teaching,
learning, and computing
survey: Is Larry Cuban
right? Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 8(51).
Retrieved August 23, 2007
from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Anderson, R.E., & Dexter,
S. (2005). School
technology leadership: An
empirical investigation of
prevalence and effect.
Educational Administration
Quarterly, 41(1), 49-82.
25
Theoretical Foundations
Harris, J., Mishra, P., &
Koehler, M. (2009).
Teachers’ technological
pedagogical content
knowledge and learning.
Journal of Research on
Technology in Education,
41(4), 393-416.
International Society for
Technology in Education
(ISTE). (2002). National
educational technology
standards for teachers:
Preparing teachers to use
technology. Danvers, MA:
ISTE.
Jonassen, D. H. (2004).
Handbook of research for
educational
communications and
technology. Mahwah, NJ: L.
Erlbaum Associates.
Oppenheimer, T. (2004).
The flickering mind: Saving
education from the false
promise of technology.
New York, NY: Random
House.
Reigeluth, C.M. (Ed.).
(1999). Instructional-design
theories and models.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Empirical Foundations
51/.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold
and underused: Computers
in the classroom.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Elias, M.J., Friedlander,
B.S., & Tobias, S.E. (2001).
Engaging the resistant child
through computers: A
manual to facilitate social
and emotional learning.
Port Chester, NY: Dude.
Ertmer, P. A. (2006).
Teacher pedagogical
beliefs: The final frontier in
our quest for technology
integration? Educational
Technology Research and
Development, 53(4), 25-39.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What
video games have to teach
us about learning and
literacy.
Palgrave/Macmillan:
New York, NY.
Pierson, M. L. (2001).
Technology integration
practice as a function of
pedagogical expertise.
Journal of Research on
Technology in Education,
33(4). Retrieved July 15,
2009 from
http://206.58.233.20/jrte/33/
4/abstracts/pierson.html
Giovagnoli, M. (2011).
Transmedia storytelling:
Imagery, shapes and
techniques. Retrieved from
http://talkingobjects.files.w
ordpress.com/2012/01/book
-by-max-giovagnolitransmedia-storytellingimagery-shapes-andtechniques.pdf
Project Tomorrow. (2009).
The new digital advance
team—America’s K–12
students
leading the way to
transforming learning with
21st Century technology
tools. Retrieved from Eric
data base. (ED540403)
Sullivan, F., & Moriarty, M.
(2009). Robotics and
discovery learning:
pedagogical beliefs, teacher
practice, and technology
integration. Journal of
Technology and Teacher
Johnston, L., Beard, L.A.,
& Carpenter, L.B. (2007).
Assistive technology:
Access for all students.
Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill/Prentice
Hall.
Lohr, L. L., (2008).
Creating graphics for
learning and performance
(2nd ed.). Columbus, OH:
Merrill/ Prentice Hall.
26
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Education, 17(1), 109-142.
Spector, M. et al., (Eds.).
(2008). Handbook of
research on educational
communications and
technology (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Moore, D.R. (2009).
Designing online learning
with flash. San Francisco,
CA: Pfeiffer.
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L.
(2007). Web 2.0: New tools,
new schools. Eugene, OR:
International Society for
Technology in Education.
Staples, A., Pugach, M. C.,
& Himes, D. (2005).
Rethinking the technology
integration challenge: Cases
from three urban
elementary schools. Journal
of Research on Technology
in Education, 37(3), 285311.
Waters, F. H., Smeaton, P.
S., & Buns, T. G. (2004).
Action research in the
secondary science
classroom: Student response
to differentiated, alternative
assessment. American
Secondary Education 32(3),
89-104.
In addition to their grounding in the rich knowledge base delineated in the discussion above,
agents of change draw on certain dispositions and affective competencies that support the
advocacy role. Effective communication, including the ability to resolve conflict, is critical to the
change process (Rogers, 2003). Change agents, moreover, appreciate and have patience with the
change process, value the people involved in the process, respect different ways of knowing,
build on commonalities rather than emphasize differences, maintain respectful relationships, and
27
are open to feedback (e.g., Dentith & Root, 2012; Fullan, 2007). These affective competencies
align clearly with core dispositions that the Unit cultivates, especially the commitment to social
justice; to the well-being of students, families, and communities; and to professional competence
and ongoing professional development.
Diversity
The Unit prepares leader-educators and practitioners who appreciate the variety of
human cultural expression, employ multiple approaches to inquiry, use
knowledge and practice for the benefit of a diverse society, and promote social
equity and justice for effective civic engagement.
Introduction
The Unit views diversity as the variety of socially significant differences that
characterize students, candidates, faculty, and staff, as well as other members of the schools
and communities in which students, candidates, faculty and staff work and learn. Race,
ethnicity, culture, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social class, disability or other
exceptionality, and geographic location (e.g. Appalachia, rural) represent broad areas of
diversity; differences in learning and teaching styles, curricular priorities and instructional
adaptations, and the multiplicity of viewpoints on education-related issues,
such as views on the relative value of different ways of knowing and of different social
conventions, represent the subtleties. The aim of the Unit is for candidates who complete its
educator preparation programs to relate in respectful and productive ways to people who
belong to different groups and hold views that differ from their own, in other words, who
occupy different social locations. Effective educators, from this perspective, realize that
each social location, despite shifting and permeable boundaries, contributes meaningfully to
identity development, enabling individuals to establish selfhood, draw on a set of adaptive
28
assets, confront challenges, and contribute to the wider communities to which they have
access (Banks, 2004; Grant & Gomez, 2001; Gregoriou, 2013; LAS definition of diversity,
2004). Based on this perspective, the Unit has established the following expectations for its
candidates in regard to diversity:

understand and respect the “interdependence of humanity, cultures, and natural
environments” (LAD definition of diversity, 2004);

remain open to and appreciative of different qualities and experiences;

understand ways of being and ways of knowing that differ from their own;

stay attentive to the fact that individual, institutional, and cultural discrimination
maintains privileges for particular groups while creating disadvantages for others;

recognize and counter instances and patterns of institutional and individual
discrimination against particular groups and individuals;

strive to eradicate all types of discrimination; and

encourage cultural plurality and power sharing within the organizational culture of
their schools and the broader communities to which their schools belong.
The Unit cultivates prospective educators’ development of cultural consciousness in
ways that enable them to work effectively with parents and other family members and to
draw on students’ pre-existing cultural funds of knowledge (Moll, Armanti, Neff, &
Gonzalez, 1992) in order to promote relevant learning and high academic achievement.
Effective learning, in this view, occurs when the learning environment builds on the funds
of knowledge accessible to each student in order to enrich the learning of all students.
Meaningful, supportive, culturally based, and learner-centered environments allow students
to expand their self-actualizing knowledge and skills by drawing on and then adding to the
29
concepts and skills their families, communities, and cultures already have taught them. This
approach to education has been variously called “culturally appropriate,” “culturally
responsive,” “culturally relevant,” and “culturally competent” (Banks & Banks, 2012;
Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Gay, 2000; Spring, 2007).
In addition to developing candidates’ cultural consciousness, the Unit also works to
assure that its candidates demonstrate commitment to social justice. To accomplish this aim,
the Unit provides curricula and field experiences that elicit and develop the candidates’
critical engagement with pedagogical theory and practice in relation to student diversity
(Ladson-Billings, 1995). Such engagement comes from deep understanding of one’s own
culture, exploration of other cultures and unfamiliar ideas, and the willingness to critique
one’s own perspectives as well as the new perspectives one encounters (Cochran-Smith,
Davis, & Fries 2003; Spindler, 1982). Active participation in (1) a curriculum that is rich in
opportunities for inquiry and representative of a range of theoretical, empirical, and
culturally diverse perspectives and (2) field experiences in diverse settings with structured
opportunities for analysis of the interplay and implications of the candidate’s own social
location and those represented in the field experience setting contributes to candidates’
development of critical consciousness as well as greater depth and breadth of perspective.
Knowledge Base
The knowledge base most applicable to a critical understanding of diversity and to
the cultivation of culturally responsive practice comes broadly from two sources. The first
encompasses theoretical and empirical work about diversity and the role of schooling in
both perpetuating and changing prevailing economic and social relations. In addition to the
writings of educational philosophers and researchers, the work of certain historians,
30
sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, and political analysts informs this portion
of the knowledge base. The second major source of knowledge comes from the study of
educational practices that respond in productive ways to differential developmental,
emotional, and behavioral attributes of learners. The works of many progressive educators,
special educators, and, more recently, educators advocating culturally responsive and placebased education contribute relevant insights. We categorize this body of practical work
under the heading “differentiated instruction,” although we recognize that some practices
associated with individualizing and differentiating instruction (e.g., tracking) have been
shown to contribute to the diminished performance of many students for whom they are
prescribed (e.g., Burris & Garrity, 2008). An understanding of the historical use of such
practices, however, helps our candidates distinguish between educational arrangements that
result in social reproduction and those that contribute to the self-determination of diverse
individuals and groups (e.g., Banks & Banks, 2012; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Freire,
1970; Sleeter & Grant, 2007).
An illustrative bibliography of the knowledge about diversity that informs programs
in the Unit is summarized in Table 6 below. Table 7 presents an illustrative list of recent
peer-reviewed books, chapters, and articles that Patton College faculty members have
contributed to the literature on diversity. The two tables are followed by brief discussions of
the types of diversity that candidates explore as part of their experiences in the Unit’s
educator preparation programs.
Table 6: Knowledge Base—Diversity Studies
Theoretical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
Apple, M. C. (1996). Cultural
Empirical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
EDCS 3010 Education and
31
Theoretical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
Empirical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
politics and education. New
York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
schooling: A political
economy of urban
educational reform. New
York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Cultural Diversity:
Adams, M. et al. (Eds.).
(2010). Readings for
diversity and social justice
(2nd ed.)New York, NY:
Routledge.
Apple, M.W. (2000). Official
knowledge: Democratic
education in a conservative age.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Baker, R.S. (2001). The
paradoxes of desegregation:
Race, class, and education,
1935-1975. American Journal
of Education, 109(3), 320343.
EDCS 3010 Education and
Cultural Diversity:
Meyer, E. (2009). Gender,
bullying, and harassment:
Strategies to end sexism and
homophobia in schools. New
York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Au, W. (Ed.). (2009).
Rethinking multicultural
education: Teaching for racial
and cultural justice.
Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking
Schools.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, N.,
Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J.
(1986). Women’s ways of
knowing: The development of
self, voice, and mind. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
EDCS 5040 Sociology,
Politics, and Change in
Education:
Howard, A., & and
Gaztambide-Fernandez, R.
(2010).Educating elites:
Class privilege and
educational advantage. New
York, NY: Rowman&
Littlefield.
Audi, R. (2007). Moral value Brown, C.S. (2002).Refusing
and human diversity. New York, racism: White allies and the
NY: Oxford University Press.
struggle for civil rights. New
York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
EDCS 5040 Sociology,
Politics, and Change in
Education:
Ravitch, D. (2010).The death
and life of the great
American school system:
How testing and choice are
undermining education. New
York: Basic Books.
Banks, J .A. (2006).
Cultural diversity and
education: Foundations,
curriculum, and teaching.
Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and
Bacon.
EDCS 5040 Sociology,
Politics, and Change in
Education:
Sadovnik, A.R. (Ed.).
(2010).Sociology of
education: A critical reader
Castagno, A. E. (2009).
Making sense of multicultural
education: A synthesis of the
various typologies found in
the literature. Multicultural
Perspectives, 11, 43-48.
32
Theoretical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
Empirical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
(2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Baglleri, S. & Shapiro, A.
(2012).Disability studies and
the inclusive classroom: Critical
practices for creating least
restrictive attitudes. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Chae, H. S. (2004). Talking
back to the Asian model
minority discourse: Koreanorigin youth experiences in
high school. Journal of
Intercultural Studies, 25(1),
59-73.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.
Corbett, M. (2007). Learning
(1990). Reproduction in
to leave: The irony of
education, society, and culture.
schooling in a coastal
(R. Nice, trans.). Newbury Park, community. Black Point,
CA: Sage.
Nova Scotia, Canada:
Fernwood Publishing.
Brown, M. C., & Land, R. E.
(2005).The politics of curricular
change: Race, hegemony, and
power in education. New York,
NY: Peter Lang.
Calabrese Barton, A., Kang, H.,
Tan, E., O’Neill, T. B., BautistaGuerra, J., & Brecklin, C.
(2013).Crafting a future in
science: Tracing middle school
girls’ identity work over time
and space. American
Educational Research Journal,
50(1), 37-75.
Domina, T., & Saldana, J.
(2012). Does raising the bar
level the playing field?:
Mathematics curricular
intensification and inequality
in American high schools,
1982–2004. American
Educational Research
Journal, 49(4), 685-708.
Fassler, R. (2003). Room for
talk: Teaching and learning
in a multilingual
kindergarten. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Collins, E. (2008). Black
feminist thought: Knowledge,
consciousness and the politics
of empowerment. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Fordham, S. (1996).Blacked
out: Dilemmas of race,
identity, and success at
Capital High. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Darder, A., Nieto, S., & Macedo,
D. (2012). Culture and power
Galen, J. (2010). Class,
identity, and teacher
EDCS 5040 Sociology,
Politics, and Change in
Education:
Spring, J. (2011).The politics
of American education. New
York, NY: Routledge.
EDCS 5010 History and
Philosophies of Education:
Brosio, R. A. (2000).
Philosophical scaffolding for
the construction of critical
democratic education. New
York, NY: Peter Lang.
EDCS 5010 History and
Philosophies of Education:
Noddings, N. (2012).
Philosophy of education (3rd
Ed.). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
EDCS 5010 History and
Philosophies of Education:
Spring, J. (2013).
Deculturalization and the
struggle for equity: A brief
history of the education of
dominated cultures in the
United States. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
33
Theoretical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
in the classroom: A critical
foundation for bicultural
education. New York, NY:
Paradigm.
Delpit, L. (2013).
‘Multiplication is for White
people’: Raising expectations
for other people’s children. New
York, NY: The New Press.
Empirical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
education. Urban Review,
42(4), 253-270.
doi:10.1007/s11256-0090136-z
Gándara, P., & Orfield, G.
(2012). Segregating Arizona's
English learners: A return to
the "Mexican room"?
Teachers College Record,
114(9), 1-27.
Derman-Sparks, L., Ramsey, P., Harpalani, V. (2002). What
does “acting white” really
& Edwards, J. (2011). What if
all the kids are White? Anti-bias mean? Racial identity
formation and academic
multicultural education with
achievement among black
young children and families
nd
youth. Perspectives on Urban
(2 ed.). New York: Teachers
Education, 1(1).
College Press.
Heilig, J., Brown, K., &
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience
Brown, A. (2012). The
and education. New York, NY:
illusion of inclusion: A
Touchstone.
critical race theory textual
analysis of race and
standards. Harvard
Educational Review, 82(3),
403-424.
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K.
Ferguson, A. A. (2001). Bad
(2002). A new wave of
boys: Public schools in the
evidence: The impact of
making of Black masculinity.
school, family and community
Ann Arbor: University of
connections on student
Michigan Press.
achievement. Austin, TX:
National Center for Family
and Community Connections
with Schools, Southwest
Educational Development
Laboratory.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of
King, S. (1993). The limited
the oppressed. New York, NY:
presence of African-American
Continuum.
teachers. Review of
Educational Research, 63(2),
115-149.
Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as
Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal
cultural workers: Letters to
childhoods: Class, race, and
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
34
Theoretical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
those who dare to teach.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Empirical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
family life. Berkeley:
University of California
Press.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally
LaSala, M. C., & Frierson, D.
responsive teaching: Theory,
T. (2012). African American
research, and practice. New
gay youth and their families:
York, NY: Teachers College
redefining masculinity,
Press.
coping with racism and
homophobia. Journal Of
GLBT Family Studies, 8(5),
428-445.
Lee, S. J. (1996). Unraveling
Goodman, D. (2011).
the “model minority”
Promoting diversity and social
stereotypes: Listening to
justice: Educating people from
Asian American youth. New
privileged groups. New York,
York, NY: Teachers College
NY: Routledge.
Press.
Grant, A.A., & Sleeter, C. E.
Leonardo, Z., & Broderick,
(2008).Turning on learning:
A. A. (2011). Smartness as
Five approaches for
property: A critical
multicultural teaching plans for exploration of intersections
race, class, gender, and
between whiteness and
disability (5th ed.). New York,
disability studies. Teachers
NY: Wiley.
College Record, 113(10),
2206-2232.
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The
Lew, J. (2006). Asian
best of both worlds: A critical
Americans in class: Charting
pedagogy of place. Educational the achievement gap among
Researcher, 32(4), 3-12.
Korean American youth. New
York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Hallahan, D. P, Kauffman, J. M., Loewen, L. (2008). Lies my
& Pullen, P. C. (2009).
teacher told me: Everything
Exceptional learners: An
your American history
introduction to special education textbook got wrong. New
(11th ed.).Boston, MA:
York, NY: The New Press.
Pearson/Allyn& Bacon.
Harding, S. (1991). Whose
Lubienski, S., & Crane, C.
science? Whose knowledge?
(2010). Beyond free lunch:
Thinking from women’s lives.
which family background
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
measures matter? Education
Press.
Policy Analysis Archives,
18(11), 1-39.
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
35
Theoretical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures
and organizations: Software of
the mind. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to
transgress: Education as the
practice of freedom. New York,
NY: Routledge.
hooks, b. (2000). Feminism is
for everybody. Boston, MA:
South End Press
Howard, T. C., & Del Rosario, C.
D. (2000).Talking race in
teacher education: The need
for racial dialogue in teacher
education. Action in Teacher
Education, 21, 127-137.
Johnson, A. G. (2005).Privilege,
power, and difference. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Jones, S. (2006). Girls, social
class and literacy: What
teachers can do to make a
difference. New York, NY:
Heinemann
LAS definition of diversity
(2004). Iowa State University
College of Liberal Arts and
Empirical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
Muijs, D., Harris, A.,
Chapman, C., Stoll, L.,
&Russ, J. (2004).Improving
schools in socio-economically
disadvantaged areas—A
review of research evidence.
School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 15(2),
149-175.
Nicolas, G., & Skinner, A.
(2012). “That's so gay!”
Priming the general negative
usage of the word gay
increases implicit anti-gay
bias. Journal Of Social
Psychology, 152(5), 654-658.
doi:10.1080/00224545.
2012.661803
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping
track: How schools structure
inequality. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Ogbu, J. U. (1978). Minority
education and caste: The
American system in crosscultural perspective. New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black
American students in an
affluent suburb: A study of
academic disengagement.
Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum
Associates.
Orfield, G., & Yun, J. T.
(1999). Resegregation in
American schools.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil
Rights Project, Harvard
University.
Ready, D. D., & Wright, D.
L. (2011). Accuracy and
inaccuracy in teachers'
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
36
Theoretical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
Empirical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
perceptions of young
Sciences. Retrieved from
http://www.las.iastate.edu/about- children's cognitive abilities:
The role of child background
the-college/diversity/.
and classroom context.
American Educational
Research Journal, 48(2), 335360.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1999).
Reck, U. M., Reck, G. G., &
Preparing teachers for diverse Keefe, S. (1993).
student populations: A critical Implications of teachers’
race theory perspective.
perceptions of students in
Review of Research in
an Appalachian school
Education, 24, 211-247.
system. Journal of Research
and Development in
Education: Volume 26, 117121.
Reeves, E. (2012). The
Landreau, J., & Rodriguez, N.
Effects of opportunity to
(2012). Queer masculinities: A
learn, family socioeconomic
critical reader in education.
status, and friends on the rural
Netherlands: Springer.
math achievement gap in high
school. American Behavioral
Scientist, 56(7), 887-907.
Lomawaima, K. T. & McCarty,
Reyes, M. D. (2011). Words
T. L. (2006). To remain an
were all we had: Becoming
Indian lessons in democracy
biliterate against the odds.
from a century of Native
New York, NY: Teachers
American education. New York, College Press.
NY: Teachers College Press.
Meier, D. (2002). The power of Seidl, B., & Hancock, S.
their ideas: Lessons for America (2011). Acquiring double
images: White preservice
from a small school in Harlem.
teachers locating themselves
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
in a raced world. Harvard
Educational Review, 81(4),
687-709.
Souto-Manning, M. (2006). A
Mohanty, C. T. (2003).
Latina teacher’s journal:
Feminism without borders:
decolonizing theory, practicing Reflections on language,
culture, literacy and discourse
solidarity. Durham, NC: Duke
practices. Journal of Latinos
University Press.
& Education, 5(4), 293-304.
Ng, R., Staton, P., & Scane, J.
Wallace, T., & Brand, B.
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
37
Theoretical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
Empirical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
(Eds.). (1995). Anti-racism,
feminism, and critical
approaches to education.
Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
(2012).Using critical race
theory to analyze science
teachers’ culturally
responsive practices. Cultural
Studies Of Science Education,
7(2), 341-374.
doi:10.1007/s11422-0129380-8
Weis, L., & Fine, M. (2000).
Construction sites:
Excavating race, class, and
gender among urban youth.
New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to
labour: How working class
kids get working class jobs.
New York: Columbia
University Press. (Original
work published in
Farnborough, England by
Saxon House)
Zentella, A. C. (2005).
Building on strength:
Language and literacy in
Latino families and
communities. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2011).
Affirming diversity: The
sociopolitical context of
multicultural education
(6thed.). New York, NY:
Pearson,
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring, a
feminine approach to ethics and
moral education. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural
nature of human development.
Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Sleeter, C. (2004). Culture,
difference, and power. New
York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Sleeter, C. E. (2008). Preparing
White teachers for diverse
students. In M. Cochran-Smith,
S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J.
McIntyre, & K. E. Demers
(Eds.), Handbook of research on
teacher education: Ensuring
questions in changing contexts
(3rd ed.) (pp.559-582). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Sleeter, C. E. & Grant, A. A.
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
38
Theoretical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
(2007).Making choices for
multicultural education: Five
approaches to race, class and
gender. New York, NY: Wiley.
Souto-Manning, M.
(2010).Freire, teaching, and
learning: Culture circles across
contexts. New York: Peter
Lang.
Spring, J. (1994).
Deculturalization and the
struggle for equality: A brief
history of the education of
dominated cultures in the United
States. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Tatum, B. (2003). Why are all
the Black kids sitting together
in the cafeteria? New York, NY:
Basic Books.
West, C. (1999). The new
cultural politics of difference. In
C. West (Ed.), The Cornel West
reader (pp. 119-140). NY:
Civitas.
White, E. (2012). Whiteness
and teacher education. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Woodson, C. G. (1996). The
miseducation of the negro.
Grand Rapids, MI: Candace
Press. (Original work published
in 1933)
Yosso, T .J. (2005). Critical race
counter-stories along the
Chicana/Chicano educational
pipeline. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Empirical Foundations
(Illustrative Selections)
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
39
Table 7: Illustrative Faculty Contributions to the Literature on Diversity
Theoretical Foundations
Alquraini, T. & Gut, D. (2012).
Critical components of successful
inclusion of students with severe
disabilities: Literature review.
International Journal of Special
Education, 27(1), 42-59.
Doppen, F .H. (2012). E
unispluribum: The search for
diversity in Southeast Ohio. In M. G.
Hickey & B. Lanahan (Eds.), Even
the janitor is white: Educating for
cultural diversity in small colleges
and universities (pp. 169-184). New
York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Helfrich, S .R., & Bosh, A. J. (2011).
Teaching English language learners:
Strategies for overcoming barriers.
The Educational Forum, 75(3), 260270.
Howley, A., & Howley, C.
(2012).Counseling the rural gifted. In
T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.),
Handbook for counselors serving
students with gifts and talents:
Development, relationships, school
issues, and counseling
needs/interventions (pp. 121-136).
Austin, TX: Prufrock Press.
Klein, R. (2012). A critique of
Penner and Cadwallader-Olsker. In H.
Forgasz & F. Rivera (Eds.), Toward
equity: gender, culture, and diversity:
Volume 3 of advances in mathematics
education. Netherlands: Springer.
Nastasi, B .K., Hitchcock, J. H.,
Varjas, K., Jayasena, A., Sarkar, S.,
Moore, R. B., Burden, F. F., &
Albrecht, L. (2010). School-based
stress and coping program for
Empirical Foundations
Bickel, R., Howley, C., Williams, T., &
Glascock, C. (2001). High school size,
achievement equity, and cost: Robust interaction
effects and tentative results. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 9(40). Retrieved October 8,
2001, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n40.html.
Bikowski, D. (2012). Exploring non-native
English speaking students’ use of technology to
improve their paraphrasing skills and avoid
plagiarism. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola
(Eds.), Technology across Writing Contexts and
Tasks. CALICO Monograph.
Cochran, D. C., Gallagher, P., Stayton, V.,
Dinnebeil, L., Lifter, K., Chandler, L.,
Christensen, K. A., (2012) DEC Field validation
of the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) early
childhood special education and early
intervention personnel preparation standards.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
32(1), 38­51.
Dani, D. E., Klein, R., & Gut, D. M. (2011).An
integrative professional development model in
mathematics, science, and differentiated
instruction. Ohio Journal of Teacher Education,
24(1), 5-12.
Doppen, F. H., Feinberg, J. R., O'Mahony, C.,
Lucas, A. G., Bohan, C. H., Lipscomb, G., &
Ogawa M. (2011). Social studies preservice
teachers' citizenship knowledge and perceptions
of the U.S. Naturalization Test. Action in Teacher
Education 33(1), 81-93. doi:
10.1080/01626620.2011.559445
Douglass, L. (2011). Integrating Response to
Intervention in an inquiry-based middle child
mathematics classroom. Mid-Western
Educational Researcher, 34, 3-7.
40
Theoretical Foundations
adolescents in Sri Lanka: Using
mixed methods to facilitate culturespecific programming. In K. M. T.
Collins, A. J. Onwuegbuzie, & Q. G.
Jiao (Eds.), Toward a broader
understanding of stress and coping:
Mixed methods approaches (pp.305342). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Reynolds, S., & Seymour, K. (2007).
Learning Disabilities and Ohio –
Policies and Professional
Development. Focus on Basics, (8)D,
37-40.
Waters, M., Howley, C., & Schultz,
J. (2008). An initial research agenda
for rural mathematics education.
Journal of Appalachian Studies,
14(1&2), 125-144.
Empirical Foundations
Douglass, L., & Horstman, A. (2011).Integrating
Response to Intervention in an inquiry-based
classroom. Ohio Journal of School Mathematics,
64, 23-30.
Hitchcock, J. H., Sarkar, S., Nastasi, B. K.,
Burkholder, G., Varjas, K., & Jayasena, A.
(2006).Validating culture- and gender-specific
constructs: A mixed-method approach to advance
assessment procedures in cross-cultural settings.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, 22(2), 1333.
Hitchcock, J. H., Nastasi, B. K., Dai, D.,
Newman, J., Jayasena, A., Bernstein-Moore, R.,
Sarkar, S. &Varjas, K. (2005).Illustrating a
mixed-method approach for validating culturally
specific constructs. Journal of School
Psychology, 43, 259-278.
Howley, A., Showalter, D., Howley, M., Howley,
C., Klein, R., & Johnson, J. (2011). Challenges
for place-based mathematics pedagogy in rural
schools and communities in the United States.
Children, Youth, and Environments, 21(1).
Howley, A., Wood, L., & Hough, B.
(2011).Rural elementary school teachers’
technology integration. Journal of Research in
Rural Education, 26(9).
Howley, C., & Gunn, E. (2003). Mathematics
achievement in the rural circumstance. Journal of
Research in Rural Education, 18(2), 86-95.
Huang, X., Trube, B., Yu, C. (2011). Meeting
the dual goals of content knowledge and English
language learning: A study of the CCUEI
curriculum materials. Frontiers of Education in
China, 6(1) 37-67.
Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2011).The
41
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
influence of SLA training in curricular design
among teachers in preparation. CALICO Journal,
28(2), 522-545.
Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J.
(2012).Collaborative writing among second
language learners in academic web-based
projects. Language Learning & Technology,
16(1), 91-109.
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/index.html.
Martin, K. M, Rutherford, M. M., & Stauffer,
M.H. (2012). The Rural Urban Collaborative:
Developing understandings of culture and
teaching. Ohio Social Studies Review, 48(1), 1019.
McMath, J., & King, M. (2011).Biracial
/multiracial children and families in picture
books. The International Journal of the Book,
8(3), 1-13.
Nastasi, B. K., Hitchcock, J. H., Burkholder, G.,
Varjas, K., Sarkar, S. & Jayasena, A. (2007).
Assessing adolescents’ understanding of and
reactions to stress in different cultures: A mixedmethod approach. School Psychology
International, 28(2), 163-178.
Oh, H., Hannon, J. C., & Williams, D. P. (2012).
Physical activity differences by birthplace and
sex in youth of Mexican heritage. Journal of
Physical Activity and Health, 9(4), 500-507.
Oh, H., Hovatter, R., & Yoshino, A. (2011).
Physical activity patterns in youth living in rural
Appalachian Ohio. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport.82 (1), A-61.
Oh, H., Howe, C., & Rana, S. (2012).
Intervention to improve physical activity in rural
Appalachian Ohio adolescents. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport.83 (1), A-57.
Qiang, H., Huang, X., Seigel, L., & Trube, B.
(2011).English immersion in China. In A. Feng,
(Ed.), English Language Education across
Greater China, 169-188. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Rice, L. (2012). Teaching historically based,
culturally rich YA novels with strong girl
protagonists. In E. O’Quinn (Ed.), Girls’ literacy
experiences in and out of school: Learning and
42
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
composing gendered identities (pp. 29-43). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Reynolds, S., Johnson, J., Salzman, J. (2012).
Screening for learning disabilities in Adult
Basic Education (ABE) students. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(2).
Reynolds, S., & Seymour, K. (2007) Learning
Disabilities and Ohio – Policies and Professional
Development. Focus on Basics. (8)D, 37- 40.
Trube, M. B. (2012). Content language
integrated second language instruction:
Curriculum and the CCUEI context. International
Education, 41(1), 19-32.
Wan, G., &Gut, D. M. (2011). Roles of media
and media literacy education: Lives of Chinese
and American adolescents. Iberoamerican
Communication Review. [Updated and Spanish
translation.] Available online
http://www.infoamerica.org/icr/revista.htm
Ward Randolph, A. (2012). It is better to light a
candle than to curse the darkness: Ethel
Thompson Overby and democratic schooling in
Richmond, Virginia: 1910-1958. Educational
Studies. 48(3), 220-243.
Rural Appalachia. The Unit is located in the Appalachian part of Ohio. This geographic
location provides opportunities for candidates to learn about Appalachian culture and also to
gain direct experience with the dynamics of social class (e.g., Nastasi, 2005; Shelby, 1999).
In addition, large portions of Appalachia (both in Ohio and in the neighboring states of West
Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania) are rural. With several rural and Appalachian
scholars among the faculty, the Unit has a clear capacity to provide curricula and field
experiences that connect to salient cultural and social justice issues confronting the region.
The Rural-Urban collaborative draws heavily on this expertise, as do the curricula in the
rural principals and rural superintendents programs (e.g., Howley, Woodrum, & Pendarvis,
2005; Martin, Rutherford, & Stauffer, 2012).
43
Most candidates in the Unit have opportunities to become involved in field
experiences with rural Appalachian schools. These experiences initially result in “culture
shock” among many candidates from suburban and urban locales. Working through their
encounters with “the other” (in this case, Appalachians), non-Appalachian candidates learn
about their own prejudices and, with guidance from faculty, think about ways to counter
them. Faculty and clinical supervisors help candidates recognize the assets associated with
Appalachian culture, the challenges associated with life in a historically impoverished
region, and the implications of both for educational programs (e.g. Clark & Hayward, 2013;
Wilson & Gore, 2009).
Poverty. Two major approaches to understanding poverty have the potential to
influence educator preparation programs: (1) explanations that link poverty to culture and
(2) explanations that link poverty to social structure. The work of Ruby Payne (2005)
illustrates the first perspective, and the work of Michael Katz (1989) and Richard Valencia
(2010) illustrates the second. The Unit has explored both perspectives, and the faculty is not
unanimous in its endorsement of one over the other. Nevertheless, the approach to poverty
that is most prevalent within the knowledge base emphasizes structural issues such as the
persistent inequity in the distribution of economic resources, power, and education across
social classes (e.g., Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Brantlinger, 2003; Jensen, 2012). Faculty
members’ cautious treatment of cultural attributions keeps these personological perspectives
on poverty from devolving to deficiency theories, which tend to “blame the victim” (Ryan,
1971; Valencia, 2010) rather than acknowledging the complex cultural forces that influence
the experiences of individuals and families living in poverty. Given its rural environs the
44
Unit takes special note of the high incidence of poverty in rural areas and what that implies
for educational programs and services (e.g. Yeo, 2001).
Race and ethnicity. As many commentators note, the term, “American” (a term,
which itself represents a kind of aggrandizement when used, as it so often is, to refer only to
inhabitants of the U.S.) has commonly been conflated with “White American” (e.g.,
Roediger, 1998, p.18), but the United States has never been solely or even
disproportionately White. Nevertheless, starting even before the nation was established,
White people typically claimed the right to populate the dominant, privileged group. The
enslavement of Africans and the genocide of Indians established patterns of oppression that
persist today. Not only have these patterns influenced the distribution of economic resources
and power, they have also influenced the way knowledge has been created and judged to be
valid (Dixson & Rousseau, 2006; McLaren, 1997; Rogers & Ritzer, 1996; Rothenberg,
2011; Tatum, 2003).
Many candidates in the Unit are White, and, like other White people, lack a clear
understanding of their own racial identity and the privileges associated with it. Studies such
as those conducted by Delpit (1995) find that White teachers are not even aware of
dynamics in which they tend to marginalize the views of their African-American and other
racially and ethnically different co-workers. By gaining a broader perspective on their own
social location, however, candidates in the Unit are more likely to come to understand that
students of color are disadvantaged by the advantages that Whites enjoy.
The Unit therefore uses the backgrounds of its candidates as a point of departure for
exploring racial and ethnic relations in the schools and in the nation as a whole. In other
words, experiences in the Unit help candidates “unpack” the invisibility of privilege so that
45
they gain the self-knowledge needed in order to feel comfortable educating students from
racial and ethnic groups other than their own.
The Unit’s employment of a diverse faculty expands candidates’ awareness of the
increased capacity and enriched fund of knowledge that ensue when individuals from
different groups work together to address a shared mission and vision. These collegial
relationships among faculty members of diverse backgrounds model the respectful and
productive culturally conscious perspectives that we seek to engender in our candidates.
The Unit also uses initiatives like the Rural-Urban Collaborative, the Diversity
Committee and Rural Appalachian Advisory Committee’s lecture series, the Violet L.
Patton Lecture Series, and field trips (e.g., to the Little Cities of Black Diamond, to the
National Underground Railroad Freedom Center) to provide candidates with greater
understanding of racial diversity and the historical legacy that undergirds and also in many
cases continues to sustain both racist attitudes and structural inequities associated with race
and ethnicity.
Gender and sexual orientation. Despite increased economic and political
opportunities for women and increasing tolerance of differences in sexual orientation,
gender and sexual orientation remain sources of discrimination in schooling and the
workplace. Within the education arena, women continue to lag behind male counterparts in
obtaining positions such as the high school principalship and the district superintendency
(e.g., Brunner & Grogan, 2007). And even though current research does not support the
view that female students have less capability in some subjects (e.g., math and science) than
males, many families and schools still subscribe to this belief (Orenstein, 1995). According
to some researchers, moreover, this belief contributes to female students’ espoused
46
preference for English and humanities over math and science (e.g., Herbert & Stipek, 2005;
Simpkins & Davis-Kean, 2005) as well as their relatively low enrollment in advanced
courses in some subjects, such as calculus, physics, and technology (e.g., Crosnoe, RiegleCrumb, & Muller, 2007). Furthermore, as some recent work has shown (e.g., Orenstein,
2011), corporations have intensified efforts to market a “girlie-girl” and “Disney princess”
image with predictable consequences for girls’ development of self-esteem and, perhaps
ultimately, their capacity for self-determination.
Sexuality is not an issue that schools handle particularly well, in part because it is a
sensitive and personal matter that many parents believe falls outside the purview of schools
(Walters & Hayes, 2007). Bullying and teasing based on sexual orientation are rampant
(Meyer, 2009; Rivers, 2001; Robertson & Monsen, 2001). As a consequence, educators
need to understand how sexual orientation influences students’ experience of schooling and
learn how to provide a safe and supportive learning environment, to recognize signs of
bullying, and to intervene in ways that protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual
(LGBT) students from verbal and physical abuse (e.g., Dewitt, 2012; Hansen, 2007).
Across the Unit, faculty engage candidates in activities and discussions designed to
increase understanding of the challenges confronting female and LGBT students. Gender
equity is a particular focus in methods classes for science and mathematics educators. The
principalship program also is attentive to these issues because principals play a decisive role
in ensuring that all students feel safe and welcome in the schools they attend (GLSEN,
2011).
English as a second language. Although many rural areas in the United States are
experiencing an influx of students whose native language is something other than English,
47
this change has not yet taken place in Southeast Ohio (e.g., McLaughlin, Rodriguez, &
Madden, 2008). Nevertheless, there are many schools serving at least small populations of
Ells, and the Unit is working to prepare candidates to educate English language learners
(ELLs). Many of the constructivist practices that undergird the Unit’s programs have been
found to be effective with ELLs (Echevarria, 1998; Hill, 2006). In addition, instructional
materials and assessments developed in accord with principles of universal design enable
ELLs to learn academic content and demonstrate their knowledge even during emergent and
intermediate stages of English language learning (Liu & Anderson, 2008). Special
Education and Instructional Technology faculty members infuse knowledge about the use of
universal design into many of the courses they teach.
Strategies that engage ELLs and their families are also useful. According to some
scholars, students whose first language is not English may not feel a strong connection with
a school where most students speak English (Gaitan, 2006). When teachers and
administrators make meaningful connections with ELLs’ immediate and extended families,
these students come to see the school as less intimidating and more relevant to their lives
(e.g., Torres-Guzman, 1995).
Candidates in the Unit learn about ELLs and effective methods for teaching them in
some of their field experiences. Most notably, participation in the Rural-Urban
Collaborative and in field experiences in local schools serving families of international
faculty and students at Ohio University gives candidates opportunities to observe teachers as
they work with students who are learning English as a second language. In addition, the
Unit employs several international faculty members who share their own personal
experiences in an effort to help candidates understand the challenges associated with
48
learning a second language while also trying to learn academic content and adjust to
different cultural norms and practices.
Culture and religion. Perhaps the greatest source of diversity among candidates in
the Unit is the variety in their cultural backgrounds—their social conventions, values, and
beliefs, including their religious preferences. This type of diversity, however, is usually not
immediately obvious until candidates begin to share information about their backgrounds
and varied cultural experiences. Many candidates, however, have grandparents and
sometimes even parents whose cultural identities are distinct from mainstream. According to
some writers (e.g., Mintz & Price, 1992), race and cultural difference are intertwined.
According to others (e.g., Hofstede, 1997), cultural characteristics differ by nationality, so
candidates with Italian roots, for example, may have different perspectives on life and
cultural practices than those with Greek or Scandinavian roots. The term “culture” refers not
only to social conventions, values, and beliefs that are associated with different races and
nationalities, but with the “collective patterns of interpretation” (Richter, 2001, p. 100)
associated with people in different regions, such as the Appalachian region, and of groups
within regions. Always raising questions as to whether ascribing cultural differences to
particular groups risks stereotyping, research has identified cultural differences associated
with many social classifications. In several courses in the Unit, faculty members help
candidates explore diversity by asking them to share stories about the cultures of their
families of origin. This activity sensitizes candidates to the similarities and differences of
human beings across cultures, explores the social, political, and economic reasons that some
cultures’ conventions, values, and beliefs are stigmatized, and assists them in seeing culture
49
as historically contingent, expressing a multiplicity of influences and ideologies that form an
important foundation on which individual identity is constructed.
Disability and other exceptionality. Educators do not always feel confident or
adequately prepared to work with students with disabilities or those with special talents (e.g.,
Cook, 2002). Moreover, teachers’ beliefs about the nature of disability and their responsibilities
for inclusion are often shaped by a larger set of assumptions and attitudes regarding the nature of
ability and the acquisition of knowledge (Jordan, Schwartz, & McGhie-Richmond, 2009).
Anxiety about working in unfamiliar situations with students with disabilities is a commonly
expressed sentiment (Horne, 2012; Siegel & Jausovec, 1994). Compounding this concern are the
mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 and the Reauthorization of the
Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004—legislation that holds educators accountable for
improving the performance of all students, including those with special needs and particular
talents (Rosenberg, Sindelar, & Hardman, 2004).
Course work and field experiences in the Unit are designed to prepare candidates to work
effectively with students with disabilities and other exceptionalities (e.g., Folsom-Meek,
Grotelushchen, & Nearing, 1996).These learning experiences increase candidates’ competencies
and confidence levels with respect to work with students who have disabilities and/or
exceptional talents. Concepts of particular relevance to these learning experiences are (1) the
challenges and benefits of full inclusion (e.g., Lipsky & Gartner, 1997), (2) the use of the
strategy known as “response to intervention” (e.g., Allington, 2009), (3) the value of preparing
instructional activities using principles of universal design (e.g., Rose & Meyer, 2006), and the
deployment of co-teaching strategies (e.g., Smith, Gartin, & Murdick, 2012; Tobin, 2006).
50
Intersectionality. Sociological theorists and researchers have developed the concept of
“intersectionality” in an effort to understand the complex interactions between multiple
identities—such as those associated with an individual’s age, social class, race, ethnicity, and
gender—within various discursive frames—such as the classroom. This perspective
acknowledges the importance of interactions of individual attributes and sociopolitical situations
for students’ identity development as well as for their academic success. These studies, many of
which—like Willis’s (1977) classic study—focus on expressions of resistance to oppression and
exploitation, have increased educators’ awareness and understanding of both “new forms of
marginality” and “new forms of agency” (Gregoriou, 2013, p. 180). Qualitative studies,
particularly ethnographies of schools (e.g. Nespor, 1997), identify and illustrate the processes by
which some groups of students, immigrant students from an impoverished region, for example,
are stigmatized and how “the discursive practices of students and teachers contribute to the
performative constitution of intelligible selves and others” (Youdell, 2003, p. 2).
The Unit offers students opportunities for inquiry and action research, including
ethnographical observations, that enrich their understanding of the processes that contribute both
to the marginalization of students who do not participate fully in the mainstream culture and to
the competitive advantages of students privileged by membership in groups associate with
economic and political power.
Differentiated instruction. According to Ladson-Billings (2001), teacher education
programs that include experiences with diverse children help candidates acquire the ability
to offer instruction that is meaningful to students from a variety of backgrounds and with a
variety of needs. From the perspective of the Unit, providing education that is meaningful to
students from different backgrounds is only part of what is necessary. Addressing the
51
“achievement gaps” that exist between students from dominant groups and those from
marginalized groups is also critical (Gardner, 2007; Wan, 2008).
To accomplish these broad educational goals, candidates need to learn how to
differentiate instruction in ways that meet individual learner needs and are culturally
relevant. Interestingly, as Santamaria (2009) notes, the knowledge base related to
differentiated instruction (e.g., Bender, 2009; Nordlund, 2003; Tomlinson & McTighe,
2006; Yatvin, 2004) does not have extensive crossover with the knowledge base related to
culturally relevant instruction (e.g., Cartledge & Lo, 2006; Davis, 2006; Gay, 2000;
Gruenwald & Smith, 2008; Hollins & Oliver, 1999). Faculty members in the Unit must
therefore be deliberate in demonstrating to candidates how these two approaches to
differentiation can be used synergistically to create lessons and instructional units that invite
students to participate in challenging learning experiences that relate meaningfully to their
prior experiences (Novak & Purkey, 2001). Included below, Table 8 lists works on
differentiated instruction that inform the Unit’s knowledge base.
Table 8: Knowledge Base—Differentiation of Instruction
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
Illustrative Reading
Lists(from syllabi)
Allington, R. L. (2009). What
really matters in response to
intervention: Research-based
designs. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Allison, B. N., & Rehm, L.
(2007).Effective teaching strategies
for middle school learners in
multicultural, multilingual
classrooms. Middle School Journal,
2, 12-18.
Banks, J. A. (2009). Teaching
strategies for ethnic studies.
Boston: Pearson/Allen &
Bacon.
Bondy, E., Ross, D., Gallingane, C.,
& Hambacher, E. (2007). Creating
environments of success and
resilience: Culturally responsive
classroom management and
EDCS 3010 Education
and Cultural Diversity:
Ferguson, A. A. (2001).
Bad boys: Public schools
in the making of Black
masculinity. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan
Press.
EDCS 3010 Education
and Cultural Diversity:
Kohl, H. (1994). “I won’t
learn from you”: And
other thoughts on
52
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
more. Urban Education, 42(4), 326348.
Illustrative Reading
Lists(from syllabi)
creative maladjustment.
New York, Ninth New
Press.
Beecher, C. C. (2011).
Clark, A. D., & Hayward, N. M.
EDCS 3010 Education
Response to intervention: A
(Eds.) (2013). Talking Appalachian: and Cultural Diversity:
socio-cultural perspective of
Voice, identity, and community.
Orenstein, P. (1995).
the problems and the
Lexington: University Press of
Schoolgirls: Young
possibilities. Journal of
Kentucky.
women, self-esteem, and
Education, 191(3), 1-8.
the confidence gap. New
York, NY: Anchor
Books.
Bowe, F.G. (2000). Universal GLSEN (2011). The 2011 national
EDCS 5040 Sociology,
design in education:
school climate survey: The
Politics, and Change in
Teaching nontraditional
experiences of lesbian, gay,
Education:
students. Westport, CT:
bisexual, and transgender youth in
Cianciotto, J., & Cahill,
Bergin & Garvey.
our nation’s schools. Retrieved from S. (2012). LGBT youth in
http://www.glsen.org/binaryAmerica's schools. Ann
data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS
Arbor: University of
/file/000/002/2105-1.pdf
Michigan Press.
Cartledge, G., & Lo, Y.
Horne, M. D. (2012). Attitudes
EDSP 5700 Nature and
(2006).Teaching urban
toward handicapped students:
Needs of Persons with
learners: Culturally
Professional, peer, and parent
Exceptionalities:
responsive strategies for
reactions. New York, NY:
Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull,
H. R., Wehmeyer, M. L.,
developing academic and
Routledge.
& Shogren, K. A.
behavioral competence.
Lambert, J., & Ariza, W. (2008).
(2007/2010/2013).
Champaign, IL: Research
Improving achievement for
Exceptional lives:
Press.
linguistically and culturally diverse
Special education in
learners through an inquiry-based
earth systems curriculum. Journal of today's schools (5th, 6th,
or 7th ed.). Englewood
Elementary Science
Cliffs, NJ: Pearson.
Education, 20(4), 61-79.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. D.
McGuire-Schwartz, M. E., & Arndt,
(2006). Building culturally
S. (2007). Transforming universal
responsive classroom: A
design for learning in early
guide for K-6 teachers.
childhood teacher education from
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin college classroom to early childhood
Press.
classroom. Journal of Early
Childhood Teacher Education, 28(2)
[No Pagination].Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/
10.1080/10901020701366707?
journalCode=ujec20#preview
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple Nasir, N. S., Hand, V., & Taylor, E.
53
Theoretical Foundations
intelligences: New horizons
(Rev. ed.). New York: Basic
Books.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally
responsive teaching: Theory,
research, and
practice(2nded.). New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Gregoriou, Z. (2013).
Traversing new theoretical
frames for intercultural
education: Gender,
intersectionality,
performativity. International
Education Studies, 6(3), 179188.
Herrera, S. G., Holmes, M.
A., & Kavimandan, S. K.
(2013). Bringing theory to
life: Strategies that make
culturally responsive
pedagogy a reality in diverse
secondary classrooms.
International Journal of
Multicultural Education,
14(3), 1-19.
Howard, T., & Terry, C. L.
(2011). Culturally responsive
pedagogy for African
American students:
Promising programs and
practices for enhanced
academic performance.
Teaching Education, 22(4),
345-362.
doi:10.1080/10476210.2011.
608424
Palmer, P. (1998). The
courage to teach. San
Empirical Foundations
V. (2008). Culture and mathematics
in school: Boundaries between
"cultural" and "domain" knowledge
in the mathematics classroom and
beyond. Review of Research in
Education, 32(1), 187-240.
Okoye-Johnson, O. (2011). Does
multicultural education improve
students’ racial attitudes?
Implications for closing the
achievement gap. Journal of Black
Studies, 42(8), 1252-1274.
Orenstein, P. (2011). Cinderella ate
my daughter: From the front lines of
the “girlie-girl” culture. New York,
NY: Harper Collins.
Rodriguez, J. L., Jones, E. B., Pang,
V.O., & Park, C. D. (2004).
Promoting academic achievement
and identity development among
diverse high school students. High
School Journal, 87(3), 44-53.
Semken, S., & Freeman, B.
(2008).Sense of place in the practice
and assessment of place-based
science teaching. Science Education,
6, 1042-1057.
Siegel, J., & Jausovec, N. (1994,
July). Improving teachers’ attitudes
Illustrative Reading
Lists(from syllabi)
54
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
toward students with disabilities.
Paper presented at the conference of
the International Council on
Education for Teaching, in Istanbul,
Turkey.
Richter, E. (2001).
Intercultural education as the
responsibility of the school.
In S. R. Steinberg,
Multi/Intercultural
conversations (511-526).
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Souto-Manning, M. (2009).
Negotiating culturally responsive
pedagogy through multicultural
children's literature: towards critical
democratic literacy practices in a
first grade classroom. Journal of
Early Childhood Literacy, 9(1), 5074.
Rose, D. A., & Meyer, A.
(Eds.).(2006). A practical
reader in universal design for
learning. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Wilson, S., & Gore, J. (2009).
Appalachian origin moderates the
association between school
connectedness and GPA: Two
exploratory studies. Journal of
Appalachian Studies 15(1&2), 7086.
Youdell, D. (2003). Identity traps, or
how Black students fail: The
interactions between biographical,
sub-cultural, and learner identities.
British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 24(11), 3-20. Retrieved
from
http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/2075/1/
Youdell2003IdentityTraps.pdf
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J.
(1998).Understanding by
design. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision
and Curriculum
Development.
Illustrative Reading
Lists(from syllabi)
Yeo, F. (2001). Thoughts on
rural education. In S. R.
Steinberg, Multi/Intercultural
conversations (511-526).
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Lifelong Learning
The Unit prepares leader-educators and practitioners who engage in self-reflection
and professional development for continuous personal growth, and who inspire
similar practices in those whom they serve.
55
Introduction
According to most learning theorists, children are natural learners (e.g., Gandini &
Edwards, 2001; Montessori, 1995; Steiner, 1998). When children are provided with rich
environments and given adequate encouragement, they enjoy the processes of learning and
readily acquire new knowledge and skills (e.g., Cambourne, 1995; Criss, 2008). Not all
instructional practices, however, guide and foster children’s natural curiosity and learning
capabilities; and some instructional practices even make learning unpleasant and interfere
with it (Scott, 2009). Premised on the insight that individuals construct knowledge in social
contexts, many contemporary works about the influence of teaching on learning focus on
ways to help children build on previous experiences to make sense of new ones (e.g.,
Mueller, Yankelewitz, & Maher, 2011; Steffe & Gale, 1995). Though they may not share
children’s heightened capacities for some kinds of learning, adults continue to learn
throughout their lifespan (e.g., Knowles, 1984; Gluck, Mercado, and Meyers, 2007; Valiant,
2013).
Arguably, in any society, adults need to continue learning throughout their lives in
order to adjust to changing circumstances (Jarvis, 2006). The rapid growth of technology and
information, as well as changes in labor supply and demand, make it imperative that adults’
natural proclivities for learning be encouraged and focused past their secondary and postsecondary learning experiences(Giroux, 2013; Jarvis, 2007).
Adults identified as lifelong learners tend to feel a greater sense of well-being and to
bring measurable benefits to their community (Field, 2012). Especially pertinent to teacher
preparation programs is the finding that lifelong learners prove to be much more fluent in
their transfer of information than adults who are less meaningfully engaged in learning
56
(Bransford et al., 1999). This difference may result from the fact that lifelong learners
examine situations synthetically, seeking to understand the big picture—an approach that
both authentic activities and constructivist learning opportunities promote in learners of all
ages (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Frick, Polizzi, & Frick, 2007; Wertsch, 1997).
Theories of adult learning, however, suggest that instructional approaches that are
effective with children are not always effective with adults (e.g., Merriam, Cafarella, &
Baumgartner, 2007). According to numerous writers, professional development for teachers
and other school personnel should make use of instructional approaches that are attentive to
the characteristics of adult learners (e.g., Fogarty & Pete, 2004; Terehoff, 2002). Theoretical
work on the stages of career development, moreover, supports the establishment and
maintenance of professional learning communities because they contribute to individual
learning as well as to organizational (or team) learning (e.g., Bredeson, 2003; DuFour &
Eaker, 1998; Ng & Tan, 2009; Wald & Castleberry, 2000). Related strategies (e.g., lessons
study, peer coaching) also receive support in the empirical literature on professional
development (e.g., Joyce & Showers, 1982; Lewis, Perry, & Hurd, 2009).
Knowledge Base
In order for educators to be able to cultivate the lifelong learning of the pupils with
whom they work, they must be well grounded in contemporary learning theories and
competent to use practices supported not only by these theories but by salient empirical
research as well. For this reason various constructivist theoretical traditions inform the
knowledge base of the Unit’s curricula for preparing education professionals.
Constructivism, which focuses on individuals’ construction of meaning through their
own engagement with the environment as well as their social interactions and cultural
57
precepts, has contributed important insights to learning theory in general and to applications
of learning theory in reading education (i.e., schema theory), mathematics and science
education (i.e., conceptual change theory, inquiry teaching), and even educational
administration (e.g., Lambert, 2008). In a constructivist setting, learners are encouraged to
create meaning actively in a “messy endeavor” that allows them to focus on large ideas
(Brooks & Brooks, 1999). Constructivist learning “helps learners internalize and reshape, or
transform, new information, leading to a greater understanding and better ability to apply this
information to different situations” (Brooks & Brooks, 1999, p. 15).
Although not all constructivists agree with the following claims, a broad reading of
constructivism—such as that informing the Unit’s conceptual framework—is attentive to
these theoretical perspectives.

Learning has a biological basis. Savage and colleagues (2006) discuss learning
and teaching as ultimately dealing with the most complex human organ, the brain.
Each individual’s brain is programmed differently and is influenced in different
ways by his or her experiences. The developing brain appears to be capable of
grasping knowledge in different ways at different stages (e.g., Piaget, 1972), and
the emergence of certain capabilities, such as language acquisition and recursive
thinking, seems to be “hard-wired” into the brain (e.g., Chomsky, 1965;
Chomsky, 2006; Corballis, 2011; Hauser, Chomsky, & Fitch, 2002).

Learners use their prior experiences as a basis for constructing new knowledge.
Prior knowledge provides context and meaning for making connections to new
knowledge in ways that enable the assimilation of new information. Piaget’s
theory explores the development of schemata (i.e., webs of prior knowledge) and
58
describes how these schemata assist the learner in making sense of new
experiences (Piaget, 1970). Even before Piaget published his major work on
schemata, Dewey (1938) also maintained that learning derived from new
experiences is dependent on the prior knowledge brought to the situation by the
learner. From Dewey’s perspective, inquiry, which requires learners to
investigate problems, enables new knowledge to be discovered and integrated into
the learner’s system of knowledge. Vygotsky (1986) considered the role of social
interaction and its impact on the construction of new knowledge and came to the
conclusion that the social interactions that expose learners to new experiences
enable them to transform prior knowledge into accessible forms of new
knowledge. Constructing knowledge is a highly active endeavor on the part of the
learner (Baroody, 1987). Through experimentation and reflection, schemata are
transformed in ways that bring both clarity and meaning to the assimilation of
new knowledge (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). In teaching that promotes
high-level understanding of concepts, “the key constructivist idea is that
construction of new conceptions (learning) is possible only on the basis of already
existing conceptions” (Duitt, 1999, p. 275).

Learning is a social activity. Through observation, imitation, and modeling,
people continuously learn from others’ actions and the outcomes of their actions
(Bandura, 1977).Vygotsky focused on how the connections among people and the
socio-cultural context in which they interact function to create shared learning
experiences (Vygotsky, 1978). Social participation and the character of the social
experience directly influence the learning process. According to Lave and
59
Wenger (1991, p. 29), “A person’s intentions to learn are engaged and the
meaning of learning is configured through the process of becoming a full
participant in a socio-cultural practice.” This social process subsumes the
acquisition of skills. Thus, by actively situating and engaging the learner with
other human beings, social interaction serves a fundamental role in the process of
cognitive development, including development of an identity of self and others
(Callero, 2003).

Knowledge has a cultural basis. In educational settings, knowledge that is
transmitted to students is both shaped and structured by culturally mediated social
perceptions (e.g. Boroditsky, 2011; Gammage, 1982; McCarthy, 1996). Schools
are dynamic, socio-cultural settings where teaching and learning takes place.
Teachers and students freely use “cultural tools,” such as reading, writing,
mathematics, and certain modes of discourse (Richardson, 1997).These tools
facilitate the assimilation of knowledge, individual development, and the
collective experience of “meaning making.” Social interactions, imbued with
cultural meanings, are shared by a group and eventually internalized by the
individual (e.g. Richardson, 1997; Eckert, 2005). These interactions and the
internalization of roles and responsibilities, learned throughout life, continuously
affect perception and judgment. The inextricable connection between culture and
cognition is such that each human’s learning experience is unique, but shared
meaning is also preserved (Gammage, 1982;). In addition to contributing
theoretical insights about learning, the constructivist perspective supports
particular approaches to teaching and assessment.
60

Authentic learning. Authentic learning results from experiences that are similar
to activities students encounter or will encounter as adults in the world outside the
school (Ormrod, 2008). Cognitive processes such as the ability to analyze, apply,
and evaluate information, which lifelong learning requires, are all higher level
skills and are almost always used during authentic activities. Focus on rote
memory and performance “results in little recall of concepts over time, while
emphasis on learning generates long-term understanding” (Brooks & Brooks,
1999, p. 8). Authentic activities show learners not only the depth of an idea but
how that idea fits with other ideas. This contextualized approach provides a
purpose and motivation for learning as well as sustaining a complex learning
environment that can be explored in depth and over a long period of time
(Herrington & Herrington, 2006). Collaborative groupings enable students to
engage in meaningful discussions and reflect with their peers about relevant
issues derived from their learning (Herrington & Herrington, 2006).In reflecting
on and inquiring into their own practice and that of their peers, educators also
participate in authentic activities that deepen personal understanding of the skills,
knowledge, and dispositions that promote the success of all students.

Scaffolding. Scaffolding provides support for the learner by functioning within
the learner’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Scaffolding
supports the ability to build on prior knowledge and internalize new information.
Supports are needed to span the distance between the learner’s existing
knowledge and his or her subsequent expanded understanding (e.g. Davis &
Miyaki, 2004; Hmelo-Silver, Ravit & Chinn, 2007). The learner, as an
61
autonomous and self-motivated thinker, is provided with appropriate scaffolding
when learning activities encourage active engagement, collaboration, and
discovery (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Stimulating learning activities, provided
along with temporary support structures (i.e., scaffolds), tend to be those whose
difficulty level is just beyond the functional level of the learner (Olsen & Platt,
2000). The ultimate goal of instruction in which the teacher provides scaffolds is
for the student to learn how to create his or her own support structures so that
eventually he or she becomes an independent and self-regulating learner and
problem solver (Hartman, 2002).

Conceptual change. Conceptual change transitions learners to new ways of
perceiving, reasoning, conceptualizing, and justifying truth claims (Posner, Strike,
Hewson, &Gertzog, 1982). Educational environments that support both the
exploration of personal preconceptions and the resolution of questions and
problems encourage students to work towards changing their conceptual
frameworks in meaningful ways (Stepans, 1996; Strike & Posner, 1992).

Metacognition. Through the executive functions of “metacognition,” learners
come to understand their own learning processes (e.g., Schneider, 2008; Weinert
& Kluwe, 1987). The practice of monitoring one’s own learning entails the use of
strategies that can be learned as well as the disposition to use those strategies
consistently and rigorously (e.g., Hacker, 1998) and across different domains
(Halpern, 1998). Learners who deliberately use metacognitive strategies improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of their own learning (Bransford et al., 1999;
Sternberg, 1998). In many fields, experts, or those recognized as effective
62
lifelong learners, prove to be much better at using metacognitive skills than
novices (Sternberg, 1998).
These constructivist perspectives infuse the Unit’s curricula and also provide a basis
for the learning activities that are included in early field experiences and professional
internships. Foundational knowledge representing the constructivist threads within the Unit’s
Conceptual Framework is presented in Table 9.
Table 9: Knowledge Base—Learning and Development
Theoretical Foundations
Bruner, J. (1966). The growth
of mind. Cambridge, MA:
Educational Services.
Empirical Foundations
Anderson, D., Nashon, S. M.,
& Thomas, G. P. (2009).
Evolution of research methods
for probing and understanding
metacognition. Research in
Science Education, 39(2),
181-195.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J.
of education. Cambridge, MA: C. (1983). Sex differences in
Harvard University Press.
mathematical reasoning
ability: More
facts. Science,222(4627),
1029-1031.
Dewey, J. (1938/1963).
Bloom, B. (1976). Human
Education and experience.
characteristics and school
New York, NY: Collier
learning. New York, NY:
Books.
McGraw-Hill.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child
and the curriculum. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Gagné, R. (1977). The
conditions of learning(3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Berk, L. (2008). Infants,
children and adolescents(6th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn&
Bacon
Bransford, J. D., et al. (Eds.).
(2000). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Crain, W. (1999). Theories of
development: Concepts and
applications (5th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R.
experiments: Theoretical and
S., & Baumgartner, L. M.
methodological challenges in
(2007). Learning in
creating complex interventions adulthood: A comprehensive
in classroom settings. Journal guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco,
of the Learning Sciences, 2(2): CA: Jossey-Bass.
141-178.
Dansereau, D. F. (1985).
Newman, B., & Newman, P.
Learning strategies research.
(2003). Development through
In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, life: A psychosocial approach
th
& R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking
(10 ed.).Belmont, CA:
and learning skills (Vol. I, pp. Wadsworth.
63
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
209–39). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kilpatrick, W.H. (1918). The
Driver, R. (1978). When is a
project method, Teachers
stage not a stage? A critique of
College Record, 29(4), 319Piaget's theory of cognitive
335.
development and its
application to science
education. Educational
Research, 1, 54-61.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Getzels, J. W., & Jackson,
Situated learning: Legitimate
P.W. (1962). Creativity and
peripheral participation.
intelligence: Explorations with
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
gifted students. Hoboken, NJ:
University Press.
John Wiley.
Piaget, J. (1950). The
Guskey, T. R., & Gates, S. L.
psychology of intelligence (M. (1985, March-April). A
Piercy & D. E. Berlyne,
synthesis of research on
Trans.). New York, NY:
group-based mastery learning
Harcourt, Brace.
programs. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the
American Educational
Research Association,
Chicago, IL.
Piaget, J. (1972). To
Glaser, R. (1991). The
understand is to invent. New
maturing of the relationship
York, NY: The Viking Press.
between the science of
learning and cognition and
educational practice. Learning
and Instruction, 1(2), 129-144.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A.,
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The
Hewson, P. W., &Gertzog, W. psychology of moral
A. (1982). Accommodation of development: The nature and
a scientific conception:
validity of moral stages. San
Toward a theory of conceptual Francisco, CA: Harper &
change. Science Education,
Row.
66, 211-227.
Rogers, C.R. (1969). Freedom Labov, W. (1964). Stages in
to learn. Columbus, OH:
the acquisition of standard
Merrill.
English. In R. Shuy (Ed.),
Social dialects and language
learning. Champaign, IL:
National Council of Teachers
of English.
Scandura, J. M. & Scandura,
Nesher, P. (1986). Learning
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Ormrod, J. E. (2007).
Educational psychology:
Developing learners (6th
ed.).Columbus, OH:
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
MacDonald, E. (2009). The
mindful teacher. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Pugach, M. C. (2009).Because
teaching matters
(2nded.).Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley.
64
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
A. (1980). Structural learning
and concrete operations: An
approach to Piagetian
conservation. New York, NY:
Praeger.
Schoenfeld, A. (1985).
Mathematical problem
solving. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
mathematics: A cognitive
perspective. American
Psychologist, 41(10), 11141122.
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Stanovich, K. E. (1986).
Matthew effects in reading:
Some consequences of
individual differences in the
acquisition of
literacy. Reading Research
Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
Sternberg, R.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006).
J. (1997). Thinking
Recognizing neglected
styles. New York,
strengths. Educational
NY: Cambridge University
Leadership, 64(1) [No
Press.
Pagination].
Torrance, E. P. (1963).
Tobin, K. G., & Capie, W.
Education and the creative
(1982). Relationships between
potential. Minneapolis:
formal reasoning ability, locus
University of Minnesota Press. of control, academic
engagement and integrated
process skill achievement.
Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 19(2), 113121.
Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986).
Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon,
Thought and language (A.
D. M. (1987). Linguistic
Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge,
coding and reading ability. In
MA: MIT Press.
S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances
in applied
psycholinguistics (pp. 1-69).
New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Wagoner, S. A. (1983).
Comprehension monitoring:
What it is and what we know
about it. Reading Research
Quarterly, 18, 328–346.
Educators as lifelong learners. Because the knowledge supporting practice in
educational settings undergoes significant change over the duration of each practitioner’s
65
career, many educational researchers and reformers emphasize the importance of on-going
professional development for educators (e.g., Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 2007; Mouza, 2009;
Wallace, 2009). In consideration of this perspective, the Unit cultivates in its candidates the
habits of mind that lead to lifelong engagement with expanding domains of knowledge in
their teaching fields as well as in the field of pedagogy. At the same time, the Unit
acknowledges that education professionals learn a great deal from practicing their craft in a
thoughtful manner and from engaging in dialog with one another around significant issues of
practice (Burney, 2004; Lieberman & Miller, 2001; Newell, 1996).
Arguably, the habits of reflection and inquiry are the intellectual practices that have the
greatest impact on professional growth (e.g., Farrell, 2004; Rich & Jackson, 2006; Richards
&Lockhard, 1994). In addition, on-going interaction with colleagues to define, monitor, and refine
effective practice enables educators to participate in continuous processes of learning and
improvement that eventually lead them from the novice to the expert stage of professional
performance (Frost, 2010; Lave & Wenger, 1991). These habits of mind and collaborative processes
fit with Buysse, Sparkman, and Wesley’s (2003) prescriptions for professional development: (1)
professional development should deal with knowledge that is situated in experience, and (2)
professional development should involve experiences that engender critical reflection with others
who share the experiences. The second element in this prescription can be difficult to structure (e.g.
Jarosewich, Vargo, Salzman, Lenhart, Krosnick, Vance, & Roskos, 2010). In reflecting on
knowledge situated in experience, practitioners need environments and prompts that encourage them
to go beyond mere informational or technical issues to reflect on the foundations of practice and the
assumptions underlying it (McArdle & Coutts, 2010). Collaborative reflection, if offered in a spirit
66
of professional inquiry and sense-making, sustains and deepens educators’ continued learning from
the experience of practice.
Professional development that meets these criteria tends to be “job-embedded” and
sustained over a relatively long period of time (e.g., Huffman, Hipp, Pankake, & Moller,
2001; Tienken & Stonaker, 2007). The literature listed in Tables 9 and 10 represents the
knowledge base supporting these approaches to professional learning. Table 10 lists literature
relating to educators’ reflection and inquiry, and Table 11 lists literature relating to
professional collaboration.
Table 10: Knowledge Base—Reflection and Inquiry
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
Argyris, C. (1991).
Teaching smart people to
learn. Harvard Business
Review, May-June, 99-109.
Bates, A. J., Ramirez, L.,
& Drits, D. (2009).
Connecting university
supervision and critical
reflection: Mentoring and
modeling. Teacher
Educator, 44(2) [No
Pagination].
Boud, D., Keogh, R.,&
Walker, D. (1985).
Reflection: Turning
experience into learning.
London, England: Kogan
Page.
Buehl, M. M., & Fives, H.
(2009). Exploring teachers'
beliefs about teaching
knowledge: Where does it
come from? Does it
change? Journal of
Experimental
Education, 77(4), 367-407.
Canning, C. (1991). What
teachers say about
reflection. Educational
Leadership, 48(6), 18-21.
Gillentine, J. (2006).
Understanding early literacy
development: The impact of
narrative and reflection as
Dewey, J. (1910). How we
think. Boston, MA, : D.C.
Heath.
Eichelberger, R. T. (1989).
Disciplined inquiry. New
York, NY: Longman.
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Weinbaum, A., Allen, D.,
Blythe, T., Simon, K.,
Seidel, S., & Rubin, C.
(2004). Teaching as
inquiry: Asking hard
questions to improve
practice and student
achievement. New York,
NY: Teachers College
Press.
67
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
tools within a collaborative
professional development
setting. Journal of Early
Childhood Teacher
Education,27(4), 343-362.
Hutchings, P., & Wutzdorff, Mahlios, M., Soroka, G.,
A. (1988). Knowing and
Engstrom, D., & Shaw, D.
doing: Learning through
M. (2008). A study of
experience. San Francisco,
student teachers’ reflections
CA: Jossey-Bass.
on their beliefs, thoughts,
and practices. Action in
Teacher Education, 30(1)
[No Pagination].
Kolb, D.A. (1984).
McFarland, L., Saunders,
Experiential learning:
R., & Allen, S. (2009).
Experience as the source of Reflective practice and selflearning and development.
evaluation in learning
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
positive guidance:
Prentice-Hall.
Experiences of early
childhood practicum
students. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 36(6),
505-511.
Langer, E. J. (1989).
Mena Marcos, J. J.,
Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Sanchez, E., & Tillema, H.
Addison-Wesley.
(2008). Teachers reflecting
on their work: Articulating
what is said about what is
done. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and
Practice, 14(2) [No
Pagination].
McMahon, M. T., & Hines, Nicholson, S. A., & Bond,
E. (2008). Lesson study
N. (2003). Collaborative
with preservice
reflection and professional
teachers. Mathematics
community building: An
Teacher, 102(3), 186-191.
analysis of preservice
teachers' use of an
electronic discussion
board. Journal of
Technology and Teacher
Education,11(2), 259-279.
Merriam, S. B. &
Richert, A. E. (1990).
Caffarella, R. S. (1999).
Teaching teachers to reflect:
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
68
Theoretical Foundations
Empirical Foundations
Learning in adulthood (2nd
ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
A consideration of
programme
structure. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 6, 509527.
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Roth, R. A. (1989).
Preparing the reflective
practitioner: Transforming
the apprentice through the
dialectic. Journal of
Teacher Education, 40(2)
[No Pagination].
Schön, D. A. (1991). The
reflective turn: Case studies
in and on educational
practice. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Tobin, D. (1996).
Transformational learning.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Table 11: Knowledge Base—Collaborative Professional Development
Theoretical Foundations
Calderwood, P. (2000).
Learning community:
Finding common ground in
difference. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Empirical Foundations
Chance, P. L., & Segura, N.
(2009). A rural high
school's collaborative
approach to school
improvement. Journal of
Research in Rural
Education, 24(5), 1-12.
Daaz-Maggioli, G. (2004).
Garet, M. S., Birman, B. F.,
Teacher-centered
Porter, A. C., Desimone, L.,
professional development.
& Herman, R. (1999).
Alexandria, VA:
Designing effective
Association for Supervision professional development:
and Curriculum
Lessons from the
Development.
Eisenhower Program.
Washington,
DC: US Department of
Education.
Meier, D. (2002). In schools Juarez-Torres, R., Hurst, J.
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
Meier, D. (1995). The
power of their ideas:
Lessons for America from a
small school in Harlem.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
69
Theoretical Foundations
we trust: Creating
communities of learning in
an era of testing and
standardization. Boston,
MA : Beacon Press.
Empirical Foundations
L., & Hurst, R. (2007).
Teacher to teacher:
Transgenerational
mentoring. Teacher
Education and
Practice, 20(1), 14-30.
Sammon, G. (2008).
Mouza, C. (2009). Does
Creating and sustaining
research-based professional
small learning
development make a
communities: Strategies and difference? A longitudinal
tools for transforming high investigation of teacher
schools (2nd ed.). Thousand learning in technology
Oaks, CA : Corwin Press
Integration. Teachers
College Record, 111(5),
1195-1241.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J.
fifth discipline: The art and (1999). Teacher learning
practice of the learning
and the acquisition of
organization.
professional
New York, NY:
knowledge: An examination
Doubleday/Currency.
of research on
contemporary professional
development. In A.
Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson
(Eds.), Review of research
in education (pp. 173–209).
Washington, DC: American
Educational Research
Association.
Wenger, E. (1998).
Young, J. R., Bullough, R.
Communities of practice:
V., Draper, R. J., Smith, L.
Learning, meaning, and
K., & Erickson, L. B.
identity. New York, NY:
(2005). Novice teacher
Cambridge University
growth and personal models
Press.
of mentoring: Choosing
compassion over
inquiry. Mentoring &
Tutoring: Partnership in
Learning, 13(2), 169-188.
Wood, G. H. (1998). A time
to learn: Creating
community in America’s
high schools. New York,
NY: Dutton.
Illustrative Reading Lists
(from syllabi)
70
Professional development models. Educational researchers and leaders have
developed a variety of professional development models that increase opportunities for
educators to engage collaboratively in reflection and inquiry. Two of these models inform
practices in the Unit, and therefore figure significantly in the Conceptual Core: (1) the
coaching model and (2) the professional learning community model.
Coaching is a “work alongside” model that actively supports colleagues’ professional
growth (Coast & Garmston, 2002). Specification of their goals and needs helps guide and
structure coaching conversations between educators (Lipton & Wellman, 2003). Engaged in
collaborative and ongoing dialogue, educators explore subject content and investigate
teaching strategies (Elmore, 2004) as well as develop learning networks (Johnson, 2008).
This continuous dialogue and inquiry not only enables educators to examine their own
perspectives and practices but also assists them in identifying practices that are essential for
students’ engagement and, ultimately, their learning (Donovan, Bransford, & Pellegrino,
1999; Lipton & Wellman, 2003).
Candidates in the Unit’s initial preparation programs begin to benefit from coaching
when they participate in early field experiences in P-12 schools. These field experiences give
candidates the opportunity to become partners in a three-way coaching dialog (i.e., studentcooperating teacher-faculty member) in which the focus of attention is the candidates’
emerging awareness of the connections between teaching and learning. Expanded coaching
dialogs occur during professional internships and increasingly concern the intern’s
performance of the various responsibilities associated with the teaching role, including the
role of peer-mentor that is now considered so vital to professional development (e.g.
LeCornu, 2005; Zachary, 2005). Comparable coaching opportunities are provided in the
71
advanced programs for teachers and the programs for the preparation of other school
personnel.
Professional learning communities bring educators together to engage in collective
inquiry about effective practice (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). Louis and Kruse
(1995) maintain that the core characteristic of the professional learning community is an
unwavering commitment to student learning. A corollary assumption of this model is that the
commitment to student learning requires educators themselves to be invested in a continuous
learning process (DuFour et al., 2006). In professional learning community models, as in
coaching, a shared commitment to constructive sense-making based on reflection on practice
is crucial to meaningful professional development (McArdle & Coutts, 2010).
An increasing number of candidates in the Unit begin their initial preparation as
members of freshman learning communities promoted through the University’s Division of
Student Affairs. Their experiences in these learning communities prepare them for the kind
of mutual inquiry and support that they experience later in their professional preparation
classes, Professional Development School Partnerships, and graduate cohort programs (e.g.
Hanna, Salzman, Reynolds, & Fergus, 2010). The Unit is committed to a view of learning as
a collaborative activity, and the faculty engages candidates in a wide array of activities that
permit them to construct new understandings, learn about how to learn as well as how to
teach, frame and solve problems, and embark on a course of lifelong learning though
collaborative and engaged inquiry, action, and reflection with peers, mentors, and the wider
community.
72
References
Alexander, G. (1999). Schools as communities: Purveyors of democratic values and the
cornerstones of a public philosophy. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 12(2),
183-193.
Allington, R.I. (2009). What really matters in response to intervention: Research based
designs. Boston, MA: Allyn& Bacon.
Appel, J. (2007). Emerging forms of publication, massively multiplayer educational gaming
among trends on the horizon expected to have a huge impact on schools. eSchool News,
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/topnews/
Aronowitz, S., & Difazio, W. (2010). The jobless future (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Ayers, W., Kamashura, K., Meiners, E., Quinn, T., & Stovall, D. (2004). Teaching toward
democracy: Educators as agents of change. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Balfanz, R. (2009). Can the American high school become an avenue of advancement for all?
America's High Schools, 19(1), 17-36.
Banks, J. A. (2004). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and
practices. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research in
multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 3–29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Banks, J.,& Banks, C. (2012). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (8th ed.).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Basu, R. (2006). Multiethnic neighborhoods as sites of social capital formation: Examining
social to political "integration" in schools. Education, Citizenship and Social
Justice, 1(1), 59-82.
73
Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The human consequences. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Beane, J. A., & Apple, M. W. (2007). The case for democratic schools. In Democratic schools:
Lessons in powerful education (2nd ed., pp. 1-29). Portsmouth, NH: Heieneman.
Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry
Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51).Retrieved August 23, 2007 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n51/.
Becker, H. J. (2000). Who’s wired and who’s not: Children’s access to and use of computer
technology. Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 44-75. Retrieved from
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/journal_details/index.xm
l?journalid=45.
Bender, W. N. (2009). Differentiating math instruction: Strategies that work for K classrooms
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Boroditsky, L. (February, 2011). Language shapes thought: How the languages we speak affect
our perceptions of the world. Scientific American, 63-65.
Bourdieu, P., &Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. (R.
Nice, trans.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bowles, S., &Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and
the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000).How people learn: brain, experience,
and school. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Developments in the
Science of Learning.
74
Bransford. J., Brown, A. L. & Cocking R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press for National
Research Council.
Brantlinger, E. A. (2003). Dividing classes: How the middle class negotiates and
rationalizes school advantage. New York, NY: Routledge/Falmer.
Bredeson, P. V. (2003). Designs for learning: A new architecture for professional
development in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In Search of understanding: The case for
constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Bruner, J. (1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. Orig. published 1960.
Brunner, C. C., & Grogan, M. (2007). Women leading school systems: Uncommon roads to
fulfillment. Lanham, MD: Rowman& Littlefield Education.
Burney, D. (2004). Craft knowledge: The road to transforming schools. Phi Delta
Kappan, 85(7), 526.
Burris, C. C., & Garrity, D.T. (2008). Detracking for excellence and equity. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Buysse, V., Sparkman, K. L., & Wesley, P. W. (2003). Communities of practice: Connecting
what we know with what we do. Exceptional Children, 69 (3), 263-277.
Callero, P. L. (2003). The sociology of the self. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 115-133.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036963.
75
Cartledge, G., & Lo, Y. (2006). Teaching urban learners: Culturally responsive strategies
for developing academic and behavioral competence. Champaign, IL: Research
Press.
Catapano, S. (2006). Teaching in urban schools: Mentoring pre-service teachers to apply
advocacy strategies. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 14(1), 81-96.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987).Seven principles for good practice in
undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education.
Clark, A. D., & Hayward, N. M. (Eds.) (2013). Talking Appalachian: Voice, identity, and
community. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Ciulla, J. B. (2006). Ethics: The heart of leadership. In T. Mauk & N. M. Pless (Eds.),
Responsible leadership (pp. 17-32). New York, NY: Routledge.
Coast, A.L., & Garmston, R.J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for Renaissance
Schools (2nded.).Norwood: MA, Christopher-Gordo.
Cochran-Smith, M., Davis, D. and Fries, M. K. (2003). Multicultural teacher education:
Research, practice and policy. In J. Banks (Ed.), Handbook of research on
multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 931-975). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, P. H.(2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of
empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.
Conger, J. A. (1989). Leadership: The art of empowering others. Academy of Management
Executive, 3(1), 17-24.
76
Cook, B. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strength and weaknesses of pre-service general
educators enrolled in a curriculum infusion teacher preparation program. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 25, 262-272.
Cooper, C. W. (2006). Refining social justice commitments through collaborative inquiry: Key
rewards and challenges for teacher educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(3), 115132.
Corballis, M. C. (2011). The recursive mind: The origins of human language, thought, and
civilization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Covaleskie, J. F., & Howley, A. (1994).Education and the commons: Issues of
“professionalization”. Educational Foundations, 8(4), 59-73.
Crosnoe, R., Riegle-Crumb, C., & Muller, C. (2007).Gender, self-perception, and academic
problems in high school. Social Problems, 54(1), 118-138.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Daly, A. J. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability: The potential of leadership
and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 168-216.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Davis, B. M. (2006). How to teach students who don't look like you: Culturally relevant
teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265-272.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_1
77
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York,
NY: The New Press.
Dentith, A. M., & Root, D. A. (2012). Teachers revitalizing the cultural commons: An ecological
imperative for the 21st Century. Paper presented at the AATC annual conference, San
Antonio, Texas, October 4th. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED538332).
Dixson, A.,& Rousseau, C. K. (2006).Critical race theory in education: All God’s Children
Got a Song. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1915). The school and society. Revised edition Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Dewitt, P. (2012). Dignity for all: Safeguarding LGBT students. New York, NY: Corwin Books.
Donnell, K.,& Harper, K. (2005). Inquiry in teacher education: Competing agendas. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 32(3), 153-165.
Donovan, S. M., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (1999). How people learn: Bridging
research and practice. Report for National Research Council’s “How People Learn.”
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Drath, W. H., & Paulus, C. J. (1994).Making common sense: Leadership as meaning making in a
community of practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998).Professional learning communities at work: Best practices
for enhancing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006).Learning by doing: A Handbook for
professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Duignan, P. (2012). Educational leadership: Together creating ethical environments (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
78
Echevarria, J. (1998). Teaching language minority students in elementary schools.
(Research Brief No. 1). Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC: Center for Research
on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Eckert, P. (2005). Stylistic practice and the adolescent social order. In A. Williams and C.
Thurlow (Eds.), Talking adolescence: Perspectives on communication in the teenage
years (pp. 93-110). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Eller, R. (2008). Uneven ground: Appalachia since 1945. Lexington: University Press of
Kentucky.
Ellis, V. (2007). Taking subject knowledge seriously: From professional knowledge recipes to
complex conceptualizations of teacher development. Curriculum Journal, 18(4), 447462.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice and performance.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2004). Reflective practice in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Field, J. (2012). Is lifelong learning making a difference? Research-based evidence on the
impact of adult learning. In D. Aspin, J. Chapman, K. Evans, & R. Bagnall (Eds.),
Second international handbook of lifelong learning (pp. 887-897). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.
Fogarty, R. J., & Pete, B. M. (2004).The adult learner: Some things we know. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Folsom-Meek, S.L., Grotelushchen, W., & Nearing, R.J. (1996). Influence of academic
major and hands-on experience on college students’ attitudes towards learners with
79
disabilities. Brazilian International Journal of Adapted Physical Education
Research, 3(1), 47-66.
Ford, M. P. & Coballes-Vega, C. (2001).Educators as caring intellectuals: Rediscovering the
conceptual framework as catalyst for change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Dallas, TX. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No.ED451183). Retrieved August 10, 2009 from ERIC
database.
Freedman, E. B. (2007). Is teaching for social justice undemocratic? Harvard Education Review,
77(4), 442-473.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Frick, W. C., Polizzi, J. A., & Frick, J. E. (2009). Aspiring to a continuous learning ethic:
Building authentic learning communities for faculty and administration. Educational
Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 21, 7-26. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. EJ965152).
Friedman, T. (2007).The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York, NY:
Picador.
Frost, N. (2010). Professionalism and social change: The implication of social change for the
reflective practitioner. In H. Bradbury, N. Frost, S. Kilminster, & M. Zukas (Eds.),
Beyond reflective practice. New approaches to professional lifelong learning. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational leadership, 59(8), 16-21.
80
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Gaitan, C. D. (2006). Building culturally responsive classroom: A guide for K teachers.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gardner, D. (2007). Confronting the achievement gap. Phi Delta Kappan, (88)7, 542-546.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gerstl-Pepin, C. & Aiken, J. A., (2009). Democratic school leaders: Defining ethical leadership
in a standardized context. Journal of School Leadership, 19(4), pp. 406-444.
Gini, A. (1998). Moral leadership and business ethics. In J.B. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics, the heart of
leadership (pp. 25-46). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Giroux, H. (2013). America’s education deficit and the war on youth. New York, NY: Monthly
Review Press.
Glass, G. V. (2008). Fertilizers, pills, and magnetic strips: The fate of public education in
America. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network). (2011). The 2011 national school
climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our
nation’s schools. Retrieved from http://www.glsen.org/binarydata/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/000/002/2105-1.pdf
GLSEN (2007). The principal’s perspective: School safety, bullying and harassment: A survey of
public school principals. New York: GLSEN.
Gluck, M. A., Mercado, E., & Myers, C. E. (2007). Learning and memory: From brain to
behavior. New York, NY: Worth.
81
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement. American Education Research Journal,
37(2), 479–507.
Gorski, P. C. (2009). Insisting on digital equity: Reframing the dominant discourse on
multicultural education and technology. Urban Education, 44(3), 348-364.
Grant, C. A., & Gomez, M. L. (2001). Campus and classroom: Making schooling
multicultural. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Gregoriou, Z. (2013). Traversing new theoretical frames for intercultural education: Gender,
intersectionality, performativity. International Education Studies, 6(3), 179-188.
Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (Eds.). (2008). Place-based education in the global age:
Local diversity. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gutstein, E. (2006). Reading and writing the world with mathematics: Toward a pedagogy for
social justice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, &
A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2005). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes (2nd
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. Dispositions,
skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4),
449-455.
82
Hanna, M. B., Salzman, J. A., Reynolds, S. L., & Fergus, K. B. (2010). Engaging teachers as
learners: A modeling of professional development for adult literacy providers. Adult Basic
Education and Literacy Journal, 4(3), 173-177.
Hansen, A. L. (2007). School-based support for GLBT students: A review of three levels of
research. Psychology in the Schools, 44(8), 839-848.
Hansen, D. T. (2011). The teacher and the world: A study of cosmopolitanism as education. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Harkavy, I., & Hartley, M. (2009).University-school-community partnerships for youth
development and democratic renewal. New Directions for Youth Development, [No
Volume/Issue], 7-18.
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: what is it, who
has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569-1579.
Haydon, G. (2007). Values for educational leadership. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Herbert, J., & Stipek, D. (2005).The emergence of gender differences in children’s
perceptions of their academic competence. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26,
276–295.
Hill, J. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English language learners.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Hoang, T. (2008). Perception, curriculum, and subject matter: Reforming instruction.
International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 12(3) [No Pagination].
Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.ohiou.edu/eds/detail?vid=5&sid=e963a3ce-32b64759-
83
b7a40d1ec212c30%40sessionmgr110&hid=4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2N
vcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=EJ940687
Hoerr, T. R. (1996). Collegiality: A new way to define instructional leadership. Phi Delta
Kappan, 77(5), 380-381.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hollins, E .R., & Oliver, E. I. (Eds.). (1999). Pathways to success in school: Culturally
responsive teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Horn, R. A. (2001). The dissociative nature of educational change. In S. R. Steinberg (Ed.).
Multi-intercultural conversations (pp. 349–377). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Howley, A., Woodrum, A., & Pendarvis, E. (2005).The rural school principalship:
Promises and challenges. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education
and Small Schools.
Horne, M. D. (2012). Attitudes toward handicapped students: Professional, peer, and parent
reactions. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Ravit, G. D., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problembased and inquiry learning: A response to Krischner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational
Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Huffman, J. B., Hipp, K. A., Pankake, A. M., & Moller, G. (2001). Professional learning
communities: Leadership, purposeful decision making, and job-embedded staff
Development. Journal of School Leadership, 11(5) [No Pagination].
Jarolimek, J., & Foster, C. (1996).Teaching and learning in the elementary school. (6thed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
84
Jarosewich, T., Vargo, L., Salzman, J., Lenhart, L., Krosnick, L., Vance, K., & Roskos, K. (2010).
Say what? The quality of discussion board postings in online professional development. New
Horizons in Education, 58(3), 119-134.
Jarvis, P. (2007). Globalization, lifelong learning and the learning society: Sociological
perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jarvis, P. (2006). Lifelong learning and the learning society, volume 1: Towards a
comprehensive theory of human learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jenlink, P. M. (2001). Scholar–practitioner leadership: A critical analysis of preparation and
practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Seattle, Washington.
Jensen, B. (2012). Reading classes: On culture and classism in America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Johnson, C., & Maddux, D. (Eds.). (2003). Technology in education: A twenty-year
retrospective. New York, NY: Haworth.
Johnson, W. B. & Redley, C. (2008). The elements of mentoring. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Jones, V. (2012). Essentials for engaged 21st Century students. Techniques: Connecting
Education and Careers, 87(7), 16-19.
Jordan, A., Schwartz, E. & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009).Preparing teachers for inclusive
classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 535-542.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1982).The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40(1),
4-8.
Karoly, L. A. (2004). The 21st century at work: Forces shaping the future workforce and
workplace in the United States. Pittsburgh, PA: Rand Corporation.
85
Katz, L. (1993). Dispositions as educational goals. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 363 454).
Katz, M. B. (1989). The undeserving poor: From the war on poverty to the war on welfare.
New York, NY: Pantheon.
Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (1996).Awakening the sleeping giant: Leadership development
for teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kerr, S.,& Jermier, J.M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-403.
Kim, S. H., & Bagaka, J. (2005). The digital divide in students' usage of technology tools: a
multilevel analysis of the role of teacher practices and classroom characteristics.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(3/4). Retrieved from
http://www.citejournal.org/vol5/iss3/currentpractice/article1.cfm
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kozol, J. (2012). Fire in the ashes. New York, NY: Crown/Random House.
Kozol, J. (1992). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York, NY:
Harper/Perennial.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34, 159-165.
Ladson-Billings, G., L. (2001).Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in
diverse classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lambert, L. (2008).Constructivist leadership. In B. Davies (Ed.), The essentials of school
leadership (2nd ed.). London: Paul Chapman/Corwin.
86
Lane, S., Lacefield-Parachini, N., & Isken, J. (2003).Developing novice teachers as change
agents: Student teacher placements “against the grain,” Teacher Education Quarterly,
30(2), 55-68. Retrieved from
http://www.teqjournal.org/Back%20Issues/Volume%2030/VOL30%20PDFS/30_2/laneet
al-30_2.pdf.
Larson, C., & Murtadha, K. (2003). Leadership for social justice. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The
educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 134-161).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
LAS definition of diversity (2004). Iowa State University: College of Liberal Arts &
Sciences. Retrieved January 5, 2009 from
http://www.las.iastate.edu/diversity/definitions.html
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
LeCornu, R. (2005). Peer mentoring: Engaging pre-service teachers in mentoring one another.
Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(3), 355-366.
Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., Thadani, V., & Martin, C. (2003). enGauge 21st Century skills:
Literacy in the digital age. Los Angeles, CA: The North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory / the Metiri Group.
Lewis, C. C., Perry, R. R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving mathematics instruction through lesson
study: A theoretical model and North American case. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 12(4), 285-304.
Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (2001). Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that
matters. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
87
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America's
classrooms. Baltimore, MD: P.H. Brookes.
Lipton, L., Wellman, B., & Humbard, C. (2003). Mentoring matters: A practical guide to
learning focused relationships. CT: MiraVira.
Liu, K. L., & Anderson, M. (2008). Universal design considerations for improving student
achievement on English language proficiency tests. Assessment for Effective
Intervention, 33(3), 167-176.
Louis, K. S. & Kruse, S. D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming
urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mangin, M., & Stoelina, S. R. (2008) Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and
reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (2010). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in
education. Boston, MA: Allyn& Bacon.
Martin, K.M, Rutherford, M. M., & Stauffer, M. H. (2012). The Rural Urban Collaborative:
Developing understandings of culture and teaching. Ohio Social Studies Review, 48(1),
10-19.
McArdle, K., & Coutts, N. (November, 2010). Taking teachers’ continuous professional
development (CPD) beyond reflection: adding shared sense-making and collaborative
engagement for professional renewal. Studies in Continuing Education, 32(3), 201-215.
McBee, R. H. (2007). What it means to care: how educators conceptualize and actualize
caring. Action in Teacher Education, 29(3), 33-42.
88
McCarthy, E. D. (1996). Knowledge as culture: The new sociology of knowledge. New York,
NY: Routledge.
McCay, L., Flora, J., Riley, J. F., & Hamilton, A. (2001).Reforming schools through teacher
leadership: A program for classroom teachers as agents of change. Educational Horizons,
79(3), 135-142.
McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary multiculturalism: Pedagogies of dissent for the new
millennium. Boulder, CO: Westview.
McLaughlin, J., Rodriguez, M., & Madden, C. (2008), University and community
collaborations in migrant ESL. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education,
117, 37-46.
McNeil, L. M. (2002). Private asset or public good: Education and democracy at the crossroads.
American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 243-248.
Merriam, S. B., Cafarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A
comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merrill, D. M. (2007) A task-centered instructional strategy. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 40(1), 5-22.
Meyer, E. (2009). Gender, bullying, and harassment: Strategies to end sexism and homophobia
in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Mintz, S. W., & Price, R. (1992). The birth of African-American culture: An
anthropological perspective. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Moll, L. C., Armanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992, Spring). Funds of knowledge for
teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory
into Practice, 31(2).
89
Mott, V. W. (2002). The development of professional expertise in the workplace. In V. W. Mott
& B. J. Daley (Eds.),New directions for adult and continuing education (pp. 23-31). New
York, NY: Wiley.
Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., Oh, H., Kridler, P., & Salkind, G. (2006).
Representations of teacher quality, quantity, and diversity in a national mathematics and
science program. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 6(2), 1-40.
Mueller, M., Yankelewitz, D., & Maher, C. (2011). Sense making as motivation in doing
mathematics: Results from two studies. Mathematics Educator, 20(2), 33-43.
Muffoletto, R. (1994). Schools and technology in a democratic society: Equity and social justice.
Educational Technology, 34(2), 52-55.
Mullen, C. (2008). Theories and applications of social justice leadership. Teacher
Development, 12(4), 275-278.
Nastasi, B. K. (2005). School consultants as change agents in achieving equity for families
in public schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16(1-2,
113-125.
Neumann, R. (2003). Sixties legacy: A history of the public alternative schools movement, 19672001. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Newell, S. T. (1996). Practical inquiry: Collaboration and reflection in teacher education
reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 567-576.
Ng, P. T. N., & Tan, C. (2009). Community of practice for teachers: Sense making or critical
reflective learning. Reflective Practice,10(1), 37-44.
Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education
(2nded.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
90
Nordlund, M. (2003). Differentiated instruction: Meeting the educational needs of all
students in your classroom. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, poverty, and Internet worldwide. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. M., & Purkey, W. W. (2001). Invitational education. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta
Kappa Educational Foundation.
Oakes, J., & Rogers, J. (2006). Learning power: Social inquiry, grassroots organizing, and
educational justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Orenstein, P. (2012). Cinderella ate my daughter: Dispatches from the front lines of the
“girlie-girl” culture. New York, NY: Harper.
Owens, C. (2008). Leading without leaving the classroom: Tap into teachers' skills and
knowledge to solve school problems. Journal of Staff Development, 29(3), 57-60.
Parker, W. (2006). Public discourses in schools: Purposes, problems, possibilities. Educational
Research, 35(8), 11-18.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009). Building 21st Century skills. Retrieved on July 17,
2009, from: http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/route21/index.php
Payne, R. K. (2005). A framework for understanding poverty (4th rev. ed.). Highlands, TX: Aha!
Process.
Pearce, C. L. & Conger, J. A. The historical underpinnings of shared leadership. In C. L. Pearce &
J. S. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the how’s and why’s of leadership (pp. 118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Piaget, J. (1972). To understand is to invent. New York, NY: The Viking Press.
91
Popham, J. W. (2003). Test better, teach better: The instructional role of assessment.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Price, J. N., & Valli, L. (2005). Preservice Teachers becoming agents of change: Pedagogical
implications for action research. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 57-72.
Purpel, D. E. (1989). The moral and spiritual crisis in education: A curriculum for justice and
compassion in education. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Rich, R. A., & Jackson, H. (2006). Building the reflective capacity of practicing
principals. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 2(4), 12-18.
Richards, J.C., & Lockhard, C. (1994). Reflective teaching. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Richter, E. (2001). Intercultural education as the responsibility of the school. In S. R. Steinberg,
Multi/Intercultural conversations (511-526). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Riehl, C. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of
normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration.
Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55-81.
Rivers, I. (2001). The bullying of sexual minorities in school: Its nature and long-term
correlates. Educational and Child Psychology, 18(1), 32-46.
Robertson, L., & Monsen, J. J. (2001). Issues in the development of a homosexual identity:
Practice implications for educational psychologists. In J. J. Monsen (Ed.), Gay and
lesbian identities: working with young people, their families and school. Educational
and Child Psychology, 18(1), 13-32.
Roediger, D. R. (1998). Black on white: Black writers on what it means to be white. New
York, NY: Schocken.
92
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rogers, M. F., & Ritzer, G. (1996). Multicultural experiences, multicultural theories. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rose, D.A., & Meyer, A. (Eds.).(2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Rosenberg, M., Sindelar, P., & Hardman, M. (2004).Preparing highly qualified teachers for
students with emotional or behavioral disorders: The impact of NCLB and IDEA.
Behavioral Disorders, 29, 266-278.
Rothenberg, P. (2011). White privilege: essential readings on the other side of racism (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Worth.
Ryan, J., & Rottmann, C. (2009). Struggling for democracy: Administrative communication in a
diverse school context. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(4),
473-496.
Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim .New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Salzman, J. A. (2006). Leading first: Classroom walk-through (CWT) training to help principals lead
their Reading First schools. Principal Navigator, 1(4), 10-14.
Salzman, J. A., & Snodgrass, D. (2003). Priming the pump: Nurturing teacher-researchers through
collaboration. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 16(2), 27-35.
Santamaria, L. J. (2009). Culturally responsive differentiated instruction: narrowing gaps
between best pedagogical practices benefiting all learners. Teachers College
Record, 111(1), 214-247.
Savage, T., Savage, M., & Armstrong, D. (2006).Teaching in the secondary school. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
93
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schlechty, P. C. (1990). Schools for the twenty-first century: Leadership imperatives for
educational reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, W. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and
adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education,
2(3), 114-121.
Schriesheim, C. A. (1997). Substitutes-for-leadership theory: development and basic concepts.
Leadership Quarterly, 8, 103-108.
Scott, C. (2009). How the ghosts of the nineteenth century still haunt education. Policy
Futures in Education, 7(1), 75-87.
Semali, L. (2001). The media curriculum of global values: Insidious cultural pedagogy. In S. R.
Steinberg, Multi/Intercultural conversations (361-379). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Shaw, A. (2004). About the 21st Century and education.21st Century school – professional staff
development and curriculum design. Retrieved December 20, 2007. Retrieved from
http://www.21stCenturyschools.com/index.html.
Shelby, A. (1999). The “r” word: What’s so funny and not so funny about redneck jokes. In D.
B. Billings, G. Norman & K. Ledford (Eds.), Back talk from Appalachia: Confronting
stereotypes (pp.154-160). Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press.
Shosh, J. M. & Zales, C. R. (2007). Graduate teacher education as inquiry: A case study.
Teaching Education, 18(3), 257-275.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
94
Siegel, J., & Jausovec, N. (1994). Improving teachers’ attitudes toward students with disabilities.
Paper presented at the Conference of the International Council on education for
Teaching. (Istanbul, Turkey, July, 1994). Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtS
earch_SearchValue_0=ED374120&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED3741
20.
Simon, R. I. (1992). Teaching against the grain: Texts for a pedagogy of possibility. New York,
NY: Bergin & Garvey.
Simpkins, S., & Davis-Kean, P. (2005). The intersection between self-concept and values:
Links between beliefs and choices in high school. New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, 110, 31–47.
Sleeter, C. (2001).Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the
overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106.
Sleeter, C.E.,& Grant, A. A. (2007). Making choices for multicultural education: Five
approaches to race, class and gender. New York, NY: Wiley.
Smith, T.E., Gartin, B.C., & Murdick, N.L. (2012). Including adolescents with disabilities in
general education classrooms. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Sockett, H. (1993). The moral base for teacher professionalism. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spindler, G. (1982). Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in
action. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
95
Spring, J. (2007). The intersections of cultures: Multicultural schools and culturally
relevant pedagogy in the United States and the global economy (4thed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Starrat, R. J. (2001). Democratic leadership theory in late modernity: An oxymoron or ironic
possibility? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(4), 333.
Starrat, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an
expert student? Instructional Science, 26(1), 127-140.
Stiggins, R. J. (1991). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(7), 534-539.
Strike, S. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl
and R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational
theory and practice (pp. 147-194). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Summers, M. (1994). Science in the primary school: The problem of teachers’ curricular
expertise. Curriculum Journal, 5(5), 179–193.
Summerville, J., & Reid-Griffin, A. (2008).Technology integration and instructional design.
TechTrends, 52(5,) 45-51.
Swann, J. (2012). Learning, teaching, and education research in the 21st Century: An
evolutionary analysis of the role of teachers. New York, NY: Continuum International.
Tatum, B. D. (2003). “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” and
other conversations about race. New York, NY: Basic Books.
96
Taylor, J. E. (2008). Instructional coaching: The state of the art. In B. Achinstein & S. Z. Athanases,
Mentors in the making: Developing new leaders for new teachers (pp. 10-34). New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Terehoff, I. I. (2002). Elements of adult learning in teacher professional
development. NASSP Bulletin, 86(632) [No Pagination].
Theobald. P. (1997). Teaching the commons: Place, pride, and the renewal of community.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Theoharis, G. (2009). The school leaders our children deserve: Seven keys to equity. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Tienken, C.H., & Stonaker, L. (2007). When every day is professional development
day. Journal of Staff Development, 28(2) [No Pagination].
Tobin, K. (2006). Learning to teach through coteaching and cogenerative dialogue. Teaching
Education, 17(2), 133-142.
Tomlinson, C.A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and
understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Torres-Guzman, M. (1995).Recasting frames: Latino parent involvement. In O. Garcia & C.
Baker (Eds.), Policy and practice in bilingual education: A reader extending the
foundations (pp. 259-272). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Trevisan, M. S. (2002). The states’ role in ensuring assessment competence. Phi, 83(10), 766771.
Tuck, E. (2009). Theorizing back. In J. Anyon (Ed.), Theory and educational research: Toward
critical social explanation (pp. 111-130). New York, NY: Routledge.
97
Valencia, R. R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and
practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Valiant, L. (2013). Probably approximately correct: Nature’s algorithms for learning and
prospering in a complex world. New York, NY: Basic.
Veugelers, W. (2001). Teachers, values, and critical thinking. In S.R. Steinberg (Ed.),
Multi/Intercultural conversations: A reader (pp. 199-215). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Wald, P. J., & Castleberry, M. S. (Eds.). (2000). Educators as learners: Creating a
professional learning community in your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wallis, C. & Steptoe, S. (December 10, 2006). How to bring our schools out of the 20thCentury.
Time Magazine. Retrieved December 20, 2007, from
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1567463,00.html
Walters, A. S., & Hayes, M. (2007). Teaching about sexuality: Balancing contradictory
social messages with professional standards. American Journal of Sexuality
Education, 2(2), 27-49.
Wan, G. (2008). Research evidence: Narrowing the achievement gaps. In G. Wan (Ed.),
The education of diverse student populations: A global perspective. London:
Springer.
Weick, K. E. (2001).Making sense of the organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell Business.
Weinbaum, A., Allen, D., Blythe, T., Simon, K., Seidel, S., & Rubin, C. (2004). Teaching as
inquiry: Asking hard questions to improve practice and student achievement. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
98
Weinert, F. E., &Kluwe, R. H. (Eds.).(1987). Metacognition, motivation, and understanding.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wertsch, J. V. (1997). Vygotsky and the formation of the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Westgate, C. J. (2010). Fellow travelers at the conjunction: Williams and educational
communicators. In M. Seidl, R. Horak, & L. Grossberg (Eds.), About Raymond Williams
(pp. 68-80). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wilson, S., & Gore, J. (2009). Appalachian origin moderates the association between school
connectedness and GPA: Two exploratory studies. Journal of Appalachian Studies
15(2&2), 70-86.
Wood, D. R. (2007). Professional learning communities: Teachers, knowledge, and
knowing. Theory Into Practice, 46(4), 281-290.
Yatvin, J. (2004). A room with a differentiated view: How to serve all children as individual
learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Yeo, F. (2001). Thoughts on rural education. In S. R. Steinberg (Ed.), Multi/Intercultural
conversations (511-526). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Youdell, D. (2003). Identity traps, or how Black students fail: The interactions between
biographical, sub-cultural, and learner identities. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 24(11), 3-20.
Zachary, L. J. (2005). Creating a mentoring culture. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
Zamudio, M., Rios, F., & Jaime, A. M. (2008). Thinking critically about difference: Analytical
tools for the 21st century. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(2), 215-229.