Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher Preparation, and P12 Learning

1
ATTACHMENT B
MAPS GUIDING THEORY DEVELOPMENT
SUMMER 2 005 WORK SESSION REVISIONS
Contents

• Framing Maps
• Design Maps
• Parameter Setting Maps

Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
2
THEORY INITIATIVE FRAMING MAPS AS REVISED
FOLLOWING OUR SUMMER 2005 WORK SESSION
Contents

• An applied developmental approach to theory
  building around teacher learning
• Teacher work centered theory Preparing teachers
  for standards-based, evidence-driven schools
• Teacher professional development as a continuum
• Teacher learning as mastery of enabling knowledge
  and skills, and developing expertise in their
  application, within the context of
  developmentally appropriate decision making
• The nature and role of collaborative research in
  the theory building process
• Some general purpose hypotheses to discuss for
  their reasonableness
• Philosophic and strategic considerations in
  pursuing our theory building work

Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
3
REVISED THEORY FRAMING MAP A, Summer 2005
An Applied Developmental Approach to Theory
Building Around Teacher Learning
LEVEL 0. Characteristics of applicants to a
teacher preparation program likely to interfere
significantly in their performance in the
program, or subsequently as a practicing
professional. LEVEL I. Familiarity with teacher
and student work in standards-based, evidence
driven schools as a condition of moving to Level
II LEVEL II. Trying ones hand at teaching
Successful performance in early practicum and
simulated teaching experiences as a condition of
moving to Level III LEVEL III. Assuming the
role of a NOVICE teacher Successful performance
in pre-student teaching practicum experiences as
a condition of moving to Level IV LEVEL IV.
Demonstrating ones EFFECTIVENESS as a novice
teacher Successful performance in independent,
short-term full responsibility teaching either as
a student teacher or intern LEVEL V.
Demonstrating ones COMPETENCE as an early
career (1st, 2nd or 3rd year) teacher as a
condition of moving to Level VI LEVEL VI.
Demonstrating ones PROFICIENCY as an
established teacher as a condition of
second-stage licensing and continuing to hold a
teaching position LEVEL VII. Demonstrating ones
EXPERTISE as a teacher in helping all students in
ones classroom make large gains toward each
standard for learning they are expected to
accomplish
Start here with benchmarked performance standard
s
NOTE Each level of professional development
will carry specifications referenced against all
dimensions of MID-RANGE THEORY BUILDING outlined
in Theory Framing Map B.
Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
4
THEORY INITIATIVE FRAMING MAP B (no Summer 2005
revisions)
Teacher Work Centered Theory Preparing Teachers
for Standards-Based, Evidence-Driven Schools

• Component Theory, e.g.
• brain development inhibitors and facilitators
• learning disabilities causation and treatment
• generalizability of teaching methods
• the role of student motivation in school-based
  learning
• the impact of peers on student success in school

• Large-Scale Theory, e.g.
• factors contributing to schools as successful
  contexts for learning
• the impact of state and federal education
  policies on the effectiveness of schools
• the role of effective schools in community growth
  and economic development

MID-RANGE THEORY FOR TEACHER PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
CLASSROOM AND PARENT FOCUSED WORK
SCHOOL AND CURRICULUM FOCUSED WORK
DISTRICT AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOCUSED WORK
Enabling knowledge, skills and dispositions ? Indi
cators of effective performance ? Indicators of
impact on student learning ? Salient classroom
characteristics as explanatory variables ? Salient
teacher characteristics as explanatory
variables ? Salient school characteristics as
explanatory variables ? Meaningful, feasible and
defensible measures for all of the
above ? Accompanying performance standards where
appropriate and needed
Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
5
THEORY INITIATIVE FRAMING MAP C (no Summer 2005
revisions)
Teacher Professional Development as a Continuum
INITIAL LICENSURE
SECOND-STAGE LICENSURE
NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION
Preservice
Early Career
Veteran
RELATED LEVELS OF EXPERTISE
Novice
Competent
Proficient
Accomplished
Master

• THEORY RELATED TASKS
• Differentiate the performance standards for each
  level of expertise listed
• Differentiate the indicators of a teachers
  impact on learning expected for each level of
  expertise listed
• Designate the enabling knowledge, skills and
  dispositions needed to reach the various levels
  of expertise listed
• Designate the sources of evidence and approaches
  to assessment to be used with all the above

Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
6
REVISED THEORY FRAMING MAP D, Summer 2005
Teacher Learning as Mastery of Enabling Knowledge
and Skills, and Developing Expertise in their
Application, Within the Context of
Developmentally Appropriate Decision Making

• EDUCATION AND A and S COURSES
• Mastery of enabling knowledge and skills around
• the nature of teaching and learning in todays
  standards-based schools
• K-12 standards for learning in subject areas to
  be taught
• human development and learning
• standards related curriculum development,
  implementation and assessment
• subject matter background teachers need to
  facilitate standards-related learning
• instructional strategies and procedures teachers
  need to facilitate standards-related learning

SUPERVISED CLINIAL PRACTICE Proficiency in
knowledge and skill integration, alignment, and
adaptation to accommodate the learning needs of
students in a standards-based learning
environment Application Impact on K-12 student
learning Reflection on practice
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE DECISION MAKING
Pedagogical thinking Professional
dispositions and expectations Planning for
continued professional development
Developmentally appropriate decision making
involves attending to the needs of students along
multiple developmental pathways (physical,
social, emotional, cognitive, linguistic,
psychological) recognizing the interdependence
of and interactions among these pathways,
particularly the interactions among development,
knowledge and learning, and designing ones
instruction accordingly understanding the
inevitability of individual differences within
each pathway, as well as among pathways, and
honoring them and respecting the reality that
both learning and development are deeply embedded
in cultural contexts. The mastery of enabling
knowledge and skills, and developing expertise in
their application, requires continuous
referencing and accommodation to all the
complexities and attending demands of such a
developmental perspective. The chapter by Francis
Horowitz and her colleagues in Preparing Teachers
for a Changing World (Darling-Hammond and
Bransford, 2005) discusses the meaning of such a
perspective in detail, and outlines strategies
for helping prospective teachers acquire related
expertise.
Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
7
THEORY INITIATIVE FRAMING MAP E (no summer 2005
revisions)
The Nature and Role of Collaborative Research in
the Theory Building Process

• What do we mean, operationally, by
  collaborative research? For example, is it
• What is the mechanism through which we design and
  implement whatever our collaborative research
  (CR) efforts turn out to be?
• How much attention do we give collectively to a
  common or complementary focus to our CR
  efforts?
• How much attention do we give collectively to the
  design, data collection methodologies employed,
  specific measures used, and kind of data analyses
  run within our CR efforts?
• How should our CR efforts link to our theory
  building efforts, and vice versa?
• What is the goal, or intended outcomes, of an
  agreed to collaborative research and theory
  building adventure?

Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
8
THEORY INITIATIVE FRAMING MAP F (no summer 2005
revisions)
Some General Purpose Hypotheses to Discuss for
their Reasonableness

• No single independent (experimental, treatment)
  variable, nor single intervening or moderating
  (contextual) variable addressed within any
  research study that has as its focus teacher
  professional development, will account for more
  than 20 of the variance observed in any measure
  of teacher classroom performance used as a
  dependent variable in the study and no more than
  10 of the variance observed in any measure of
  teacher impact on learning used in the study.
• No measure of a single dimension of teacher
  classroom performance as an explanatory
  variable, within any research study on the
  relationship between teaching and learning, will
  account for more than 10 of the variance
  observed in any measure of teacher impact on
  learning.
• A profile of measures of teacher classroom
  performance at one level of professional
  development will be a better predictor of
  classroom performance at a subsequent level of
  development than any combination of measures
  around the enabling knowledge and skills
  possessed by a teacher at the more advance level
  of development.
• We will find greater variability in the classroom
  performance of teachers within any group of
  teachers studied than we will between any two or
  more groups of teachers studied.

Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
9
THEORY INITIATIVE FRAMING MAP G (no summer 2005
revisions)
Philosophic and Strategic Considerations in
Pursuing Our Theory Building Work

• The view we hold of teaching as an evolving
  profession?
• Linkage with the teacher education community
  generally, and faculty at our own institutions?
• Linkage with the education research community
  generally, and research faculty at our own
  institutions?
• Linkage with the education and teacher education
  policy community nationally, and within our own
  states?

Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
10
THEORY DESIGN MAPS AS REVISED FOLLOWING OUR
SUMMER 2005 WORK SESSION
Contents

• All classroom teachers prepared as generalists,
  but also as specialists at one or more levels of
  schooling and in one or more subject areas
• All classroom teachers prepared to meet the
  demands of standards-based schooling beyond the
  classroom
• Indicators of teacher impact on learning in a
  standards-based school environment
• Areas of specialization that remove teachers from
  regular classrooms

Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
11
THEORY DESIGN MAP M (not addressed fully in the
2005 summer work session)
All classroom teachers prepared as generalists,
but also as specialists at one or more levels
of schooling and in one or more subject areas
Preparation as Classroom Teaching Generalists

• Generic teaching-learning models (choreographies
  of teaching that bridge instruction to
  learning)1
• Literacy teaching (English/Language Arts) models
• Personalized teaching (to accommodate student
  progress in learning and interest) models
• Adaptive teaching (to accommodate learning
  disabilities) models

Preparation as Classroom Teaching Specialists

• Developmental level of students (choose 1 or 2)
• K-2
• 3-5
• 6-8
• 9-12
• Subject area (choose 1 or 2)
• English/Language Arts (literacy)
• Mathematics
• Science
• History and Social Studies

Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
1 The language used and models described by Oser
and Baeriswyl in the 2001 Handbook of Research on
Teaching, pp 1031-1065.
12
THEORY DESIGN MAP N (left unchanged, but se
ATTACHMENT C for related comments and questions)
All classroom teachers prepared to contribute to
the demands of standards-based schooling beyond
the classroom
Working with Parents

• Providing general information about their child's
  classroom and school, including related standards
  for learning and their assessment
• Providing information about their childs
  involvement in school, including his or her
  progress toward targeted standards for learning
• Working with parents, when needed, to help their
  child with his or her learning, including
  arranging for tutoring in IEP assistance, or
  transfer to another classroom or school
• When called for, assisting parents in their own
  learning

Working with Colleagues

• Toward curriculum clarification, understanding or
  coordination across classrooms, subject areas, or
  grade levels
• Toward curriculum refinement or improvement based
  on unacceptable student progress in learning
• Toward the improvement of instruction based on
  unacceptable student progress in learning
• Toward the improvement of classroom or school
  environments generally as contexts for learning
• Toward the enhancement of working conditions or
  support systems for teachers in ones school or
  district

Working with School, District, and Community
Support Personnel

• Around assistance with any or all of the above
• Around special programs or services to assist
  students in their learning
• Around special programs or services to assist
  parents in their role as facilitators of
  school-based learning

Working with Regional, State,and National
Representatives of The Profession

• Keeping abreast of job related web-sites and
  on-line teacher support systems
• Keeping abreast of job related journal or other
  published literature
• Contributing to the work of local or regional
  professional organizations
• Contributing to the work of state or national
  professional organizations

Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
13
THEORY INITIATIVE FRAMING MAP O (left unchanged,
but see ATTACHMENT C for related comments and
questions)
Indicators of teacher impact on learning in a
standards-based school environment
INSTRUCTIONALLY EMBEDDED EVIDENCE (through
classroom observation or videotaping)   Student
engagement in learning   Level(s) of
intellectual work pursued, e.g., Blooms
taxonomy   Student understanding and
exploration of meaning within/across subject
areas   Student interest in content to be
learned   Proportion of an instructional period
in which targeted learning tasks are
pursued   INSTRUCTIONALLY LINKED EVIDENCE
(through teacher documented student progress in
learning)   Teacher documented gains in
non-trivial learning through one or more units of
instruction taught, with data on learning
disaggregated for designated groups of
students   Samples of student work evaluated
against established state or district performance
standards, with student work disaggregated for
designated groups of students   Teacher
maintained records of student progress in
learning, with information disaggregated for
designated groups of students   Quality of
teacher explanation and interpretation of
evidence presented on the progress students have
made in their learning   A continuous
progress record of learning by students provided
through on-line computer adapted
assessment   INSTRUCTIONALLY ALIGNED EVIDENCE
(through school, district or state administered
examinations clearly linked to the curriculum
guiding teachers and student work in a
school)   Student performance on teacher
developed assessments administered prior to and
following an extended period of instruction,
e.g., mid-term or end-of-term, with data
disaggregated for designated groups of
students   Student performance on district
developed examinations administered prior to and
following an extended period of instruction,
with results disaggregated   Student
performance on state examinations administered at
the beginning and end of a school year, with
results disaggregated   Student performance
on district or state administered examinations at
the end of a school year analyzed with a
value added methodology of the kind
developed by William Sanders
Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
14
THEORY DESIGN MAP P (not addressed in the 2005
summer work session)
Areas of specialization that remove teachers from
regular classrooms

• Teachers of students with severe intellectual and
  emotional handicaps
• Student guidance counselors
• Curriculum development and improvement
  coordinators
• Student and program assessment coordinators

Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
15
PARAMETER SETTING MAPS FOR THE CTPL THEORY
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE
Contents
AA. Generic teaching/learning models as
foundations for standards-based teaching and
learning BB. Literacy teaching
(English/Language Arts) models as foundations for
standards-based teaching and learning CC.
Personalized teaching (to accommodate student
progress in learning and interest) models as
foundations for standards-based teaching and
learning DD. Adaptive teaching (to
accommodate learning disabilities) models as
foundations for standards-based teaching and
learning EE. Social, emotional and academic
learning skills students need to succeed in a
standards-based learning environment FF.
Generic clinical proficiencies all teachers need
to be successful as facilitators of learning in a
standards-based school environment GG. The
developmental level(s) of P-12 students one will
be working with as learning HH. Subject
area(s) and related performance standards within
which one's students will be doing their
learning I I. Domains for student learning
in which all teachers need to demonstrate their
effectiveness as facilitators of learning as a
condition of INITIAL licensure
Developed in detail, for illustrative purposes,
in the pages attached.
Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
16
PARAMETER SETTING MAP AA (left unchanged, but
see ATTACHMENT C for related comments and
questions)
Generic teaching/learning models (choreographies
of teaching that bridge instruction to learning)
as foundations for standards-based teaching and
learning1
Models that address learning outcomes targeted by
a teacher

• Knowledge building (explaining an object
  understanding the meaning of a word)
• Concept building (constructing a knowledge
  network)
• Skill building (making routines automatic)
• Developing learning strategies and their use
  (learning to learn metacognition)
• Social learning (learning to relate to others
  social exchange)
• Construction of values and value identity (value
  clarification value development, critical value
  analysis)
• Learning to negotiate (producing consensus in
  various situations)
• Development as an aim of education (controversial
  issue discussion dilemma discussion)

Models that address learning that is not
expressly targeted by a teacher

• Learning through personal experience
• Discovery learning
• Contemplative learning
• Learning through realties discourse
• Learning through movement and other forms of
  creative expression
• Hypertext learning (random surfing on internet,
  CD-ROMs, etc)

1 The concept of choreographies of teaching
that link differentially to broad categories of
learning outcomes are discussed in considerable
detail by Fritz Oser and Franz Baeriswyl in their
chapter in the 2001 Handbook of Research on
Teaching (pp 1031-1065). The pages attached to
this map provide an introduction to their work
and the promise it seems to hold for ours.
Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
17
EXCERPTS FROM THE OSER AND BAERISWYL CHAPTER THAT
INTRODUCE THEIR WORK AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE TO
THEORY CONNECTING TEACHING, TEACHER PREPARATION
AND P-12 LEARNING
A choreography of teaching . is composed of the
planning and processing of teaching (sight
structure) and of the planning and processing of
the learning process (basis-model) in the
classroom. Planning is defined as organizing in
advance a structured form of action
(instructional plans) in which the mental models
of the steps can stimulate cognitive operations
in learners. In general, we admit that any
planning sequence is guided by tasks, situational
aspects, cultural ethos, and, of course,
motivational and cognitive elements. For our
work, we have elaborated on four principal
assumptions that form the basis for lesson
preparation and for the corresponding selection
of a choreography of teaching. These four
assumptions help us to understand what occurs
simultaneously in the teaching and the learning
processes. They describe the most important
elements that are needed for the learner to make
sense out of the learning and to understand his
or here own learning process. The first of these
assumptions refers to constructivism. It claims
that teachers always positively design blueprints
for activating learning that has school-based
constraints, developmental constraints,
childrens prior knowledge, and motivational
styles in mind. The second assumption refers to
the belief that teachers can hypothesize the kind
of inner acts or mental operations students use
when they learn. This belief is based on the
Piagetian tradition of learning as an inner
activity of the individual. The third assumption
has to do with measurement. The success of
choreographed instructional scripts or plans
(chained steps of instruction) is measurable by
the end performance as well as by the ease and
security of understanding that are exhibited in
each step along the way, in other words, as
hands-on performance during the instruction.
Obviously, good teaching influences students to
become intrinsically motivated to learn and
instinctively able to apply an appropriate
learning style that stimulates knowledge
building, problem solving, and similar types of
mental operations. However, good lessons do not
lead automatically to good performance. Students
must rehearse, do their homework, and possess a
high level of responsibility and
self-understanding related to their own
learning. The fourth assumption refers to the
distinction between optimal teaching (expert
teaching) which is scaffolding that sets
conditions for children to act effectively and
inexpert teaching which does not take into
account that children can lose track, become
sidetracked by their own interest, or be unable
to build real knowledge within a reasonable time.
(p1032)

• To the dismay of teachers, children's cognitive
  sequences often do not follow the path indicated
  during the course of teaching. In fact, they
  often go in completely different directions. This
  divergence occurs because sequences for learning
  are not the same as those for teaching In this
  chapter we have presented already the notion of a
  visible structure of teaching. With that, we
  mean the events initiated by teachers. We also
  peak of basis-models, and with that term, we mean
  the internal learning sequences, or operations,
  that children follow to appropriate knowledge,
  develop socially, solve problems, acquire skills,
  etc. The visible structure is highly situated or
  situation related the basis-model is highly
  linear and generalizable. (p1041)
• Teaching, thus, is interesting only because it
  represents the somewhat gentler constraint on the
  execution of a group of these mental activities.
  Even university teaching is a modest form of
  setting mental activity in motion.
• Perhaps the study of education, flanked as it is
  by troves of practical know-how, has neglected to
  make the mental activity of learners the center
  of observation and analysis. Whether learners do
  something (who does what and how it is done) or
  whether the teacher is successful are, as
  mentioned, two different things... The
  pedagogical viewpoint needs turning around it
  needs to emphasize the activation of learners
  mental activity and not the teaching methods,
  social forms, or content structure. Viewed from
  this aspect, the usual brilliance of teaching can
  be perverted into its opposite, namely, the
  inactivity of learners. Thus, we judge teaching
  in this project primarily from the aspect of the
  hypothesized mental activity of students the
  amount, quality, and effectiveness of their
  operations. (p1041)
• To recapitulate, the visible structure is the
  free part of the choreography -- the flexible,
  the exchangeable, the part that is continually
  newly adapted by and for learners. It includes
  methods, social forms, context, representations,
  teaching styles, learning styles, function
  rhythms, media, control forms, and so forth. The
  visible structure represents the free and freely
  structurable moment in learning.
• In contrast, the basis-model consists of those
  concatenations of operations or operation groups
  that are somehow necessary for every learner and
  that cannot be replaced by anything else. The
  complete character of these chains is determined
  (a) through rules from the psychology of
  learning, on the one hand, and (b) through the
  type of goal, on the other hand both belonging
  together. (p1043)

Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
18
ILLUSTRATIVE BASIS-MODELS DESCRIBED BY OSER AND
BAERISWYL, AND THEIR RESEARCH BASE1
Knowledge Building and Concept Building Most
instructional activity is done to transfer
knowledge, to build concepts (conceptual change)
and to introduce learners to new word meanings.
In one of our first pieces of research, we
analyzed 180 lessons that were given by 90
teachers and found that approximately 71 of them
served a knowledge-building goal. No textbook on
educational psychology (e.g., Gage Berliner,
1991 Sternberg, 1994) or general didactics
(e.g., Aebli, 1983 Dubs, 1985) is without a
chapter on this issue. The description and
diagnosis of cognitive knowledge structures are
central to what processes teachers have to
prepare and what processes they use to stimulate
learning. In the 1980s, research was done on
knowledge representation on the basis of
propositional analysis, on schema-theoretical
processes, and on production-oriented concepts.
Propositional knowledge refers to how humans
connect one argument with the other (e.g.,
Collins Quillian, 1969 Kintsch, 1974, 1998
Norman Rumelhart, 1975). Schema-theoretical
analysis was interested in partial networks of
knowledge that are hierarchically structured or
that are based on frames or scripts (e.g.,
Anderson, 1976 Minsky, 1975 Schank Abelson,
1977). The production-orientated models of
knowledge representation were interested in how a
person applies heuristics and strategies to build
and recall knowledge chunks on a procedural basis
(e.g., Anderson, 1983 Newell Simon, 1972). In
addition to this research, investigators in the
field of language development give insight on how
children develop meanings of words (se e.g.,
Clark, 1973). This body of research has an
astonishing normative significance for the
instructional field. Teachers, indeed, need to
have a clear concept of (a) how learners
represent knowledge, (b) which form the
preknowledge has, (c) how pupils build up and
memorize knowledge, (d) which trajectories of
knowledge acquisition are necessary, (e) how the
architecture of the mind relates to the structure
of scientific information, and (f) how
situatedness influences knowledge
representation. By studying knowledge and
concept building theories, we have developed a
simple basis-model that includes two levels of
complexity The acquisition of simple word
meanings falls under Basis-Model 4a, and complex
concept building falls under Basis-Model 4b.
Model 4a has the following form
1. Direct or indirect stimulation of what the
learners already know concerning the
meaning of the new notion (preknowledge) 2.
Introduction of the new meaning in connection
with an example 3. Development of the
characteristics that (a) describe and (b)
contrast the new notion or word and its
meaning 4. Active application of the new notion
or word and its meaning 5. Application of the
new notion or word and its meaning in other
contexts (analysis and synthesis of similar
words and their meanings) The trajectory of the
more complex concept building process is similar
We propose the following elements for Basis-Model
4b 1. Direct or indirect stimulation of the
awareness of what the learner already knows
regarding the new concept 2. Introduction of and
the working through of a prototype as a valid
example of the new concept 3. Analysis of
essential categories and principles that define
the new concept (positive and negative
distinctions) 4. Active dealing with the new
concept (application, synthesis, and
analysis) 5. Application of the new concept in
different contexts (incorporation of
different but similar concepts into a more
complex knowledge system) (p1054) Problem
Solving Traditionally, the operational steps of
a problem-solving process are investigated in
manifold ways (Mayer, 1992). Nevertheless, the
difference between concept building and problem
solving, experiential learning and problem
solving, developmental transformation and problem
solving was never clearly developed. Many
researchers believe that problem solving is a
kind of knowledge building, but in fact, this
belief is false. In a problem-solving situation,
we mostly know the solution, but we do not know
how to reach it. Our mind is not yet flexible
enough, and we need strategies and heuristics to
reach what we can conceive.
Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
19
ILLUSTRATIVE BASIS-MODEL DESCRIBED BY OSER AND
BAERISWYL, AND THEIR RESEARCH BASE1 Continued.
The story of problem-solving pedagogy and
problem-solving psychology is a long one and may
be best represented by John Deweys
problem-solving phases that were developed in
1910 (Dewey, 1910). The notion of trial and
error is one of its important elements. The
Gestalt psychologists investigated the holistic
and associative aspects of problem solving
Wolfgang Köhler investigated the insight in
problem form (Köhler, 1917/1963). Recently,
cognitive psychologists have occupied themselves
intensively with theories of problem solving.
Concerned with questions of algorithm and
heuristics (Lüer, 1973 Newell Simon, 1976
Polya, 1945 Simon Reed, 1976 Steiner, 1966),
they looked at questions such as (a) how novices
and experts solve problems (Mayer, 1983 Simon
Reif, 1980) (b) which previous knowledge of
transformation of the problem is used to help
means-aim analysis (Greeno, 1978) or (c) how one
proceeds depending on whether problems are
structured poorly or well (Frederiksen, 1984
Simon, 1979). Equally, Dörner and his colleagues
have studied how one sets priorities among
complex political, ecological, or economical
problems and have found that the solution process
directed here through simulated tasks often
leads to catastrophic consequences (Dörner,
1989). From all these approaches, we tried to
deduce a chain of absolutely necessary
operational elements compared to other
basis-models here. Surprisingly enough, teachers
and, especially, expert teachers generally
accepted the difference between sight structure
and the problem-solving basis-model. They
immediately felt that the sight structure could
be changed but not the elements or sequence of
operational activities. Thus, we developed the
following elements 1. Students perceive and
understand the problem (problem presentation, the
discovery of a problem, reformulation of the
problem task). 2. Students develop hypotheses
about possible ways to find a solution
(heuristics, strategies). 3. Students test the
hypotheses (gather indicators, gather data,
search for direct or indirect solutions,
test by trial and error). 4. Students evaluate
and apply the solutions found (eventually
redesigning element 2) they relate the
solution to a broader understanding of learning.
(p1053-53)
1 The authors provide this level of information
for each of the 14 basis-models they describe
Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
20
PARAMETER SETTING MAP FF (left unchanged, but
see ATTACHMENT C for related comments and
questions)
Generic clinical proficiencies all teachers need
to be successful as facilitators of learning in
a standards-based school environment
Proficiencies frequently referred to in the
literature on effective teaching, though
historically not within the context of a
standards-based school environement1 1. Planning
for instruction, assessment, and classroom
management 2. Creating a classroom environment
for learning 3. Engaging students in learning,
assessing their progress in learning,and
providing feedback about their
learning 4. Assembling and reporting evidence of
impact as a teacher on the learning of ones
students 5. Reflecting on ones teaching, the
progress of students in their learning, and the
implications of both for ones continued
professional development as a teacher 6. Shaping
ones professional dispositions and expectations
for student learning to make them consistent with
the demands of standards-based teaching
and learning 7. Shaping ones thinking about
teaching and planning for ones continued
professional development as a teacher
that reflects the out-of-classroom demands of
working in a standards-based school Theoretically
necessary teaching proficiencies to be effective
as a facilitator of learning in a standards-based
classroom 8. The contextualization of all the
above. 9. The alignment of all the above.
10. The adaptation of all the above to
accommodate the particular learning needs of
particular students working toward
particular standards for learning within a
particular classroom and school environment
11. The integration of all the above into
efficient and effective practice within the time
and resources available for teaching and
learning
1 One of the most pervasive, and unfamiliar
demands on teachers in a standards-based school
environment is the role of assessment and use of
assessment information. The pages attached
contain excerpts from Lorrie Shepards chapter in
the 2001 Handbook of Research on Teaching on the
nature of these demands.
Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
21
EXCERPTS FROM LORRIE SHEPARDS CHAPTER THAT
SIGNAL THE COMPLEX, ESSENTIAL AND PERVASIVE ROLE
OF ASSESSMENT IN TODAYS CONSTRUCTIVIST AND
STANDARDS-BASED SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT
To develop a model of classroom assessment that
supports teaching and learning according to a
constructivist perspective, we must understand
how a reconceptualizaton of assessment follows
from changes in learning theory and from
concomitant changes in epistemology and what it
means to know in the disciplines. Figure 47.4
summarizes key ideas in an emergent,
constructivist paradigm. According to
constructivist theory, knowledge is neither
passively received nor mechanically reinforced.
Instead, learning occurs by an active process of
sense making The interlocking circles again are
intended to show the coherence and
interrelatedness of these ideas taken together.
(p1073)

• Reformed Vision of Curriculum
• All students can learn
• Challenging subject matter is aimed at higher
  order thinking and problem solving.
• Diverse learners are given equal opportunities.
• Students are socialized into the discourse and
  practices of academic disciplines.
• The relationship between learning in and out of
  school is authentic.
• Students foster important dispositions and habits
  of mind.
• Students enact democratic practices in a caring
  community.

• Cognitive Constructivist Learning
• Theories
• Intellectual abilities are socially and
  culturally developed.
• Learners construct knowledge and understanding
  within a social context.
• New learning is shaped by prior
• knowledge and cultural perspectives.
• Intelligent thought involves metacognition or
  self-monitoring of learning and thinking.
• Deep understanding is principled and supports
  transfer.
• Cognitive performance depends on dispositions and
  personal identity.

• Classroom Assessment
• Challenging tasks elicit higher order thinking.
• Learning processes as well as learning outcomes
  are addressed.
• The assessment process is ongoing and integrated
  with instruction.
• Assessments are used formatively in support of
  student learning.
• Expectations are visible to students.
• Students actively evaluate their own work.
• Assessments are used to evaluate teaching and
  student learning.

Figure 47.4. Shared principles of curriculum
theories, psychological theories,and assessment
theory characterize an emergent, constructivist
paradigm.
22
Shepard excerpts continued. 2
The third circle in the emergent, constructivist
framework addresses principles of classroom
assessment. What kinds of assessment practices
are compatible with and necessary in classrooms
that are guided by social-constructivist views of
supported learning? How does assessment fit or
intrude when students are engaged in
collaborative conversations and tackle extended,
real-world problems? If we think of Vygotskys
zone of proximal development, how might
assessment insights help extend a student's
current level of learning? The several principles
identified in Figure 47.4 fall into two main
categories having to do with transformation of
both the substance of assessments and how they
are used. Because these principles are elaborated
in the subsequent sections of the chapter, I
present them here only briefly. First, the
substance of classroom assessments must be
congruent with important learning goals. In
contrast to the reductionistic and
decontextualized view of subject matter knowledge
produced by the scientific measurement paradigm,
this requirement means that the content of
assessments must match challenging subject matter
standards and be connected to contexts of
application. As part of this, assessments must
mirror important thinking and learning processes,
especially modes of inquiry and discourse, as
they are valued and practiced in the
classroom. The purpose of assessment in
classrooms must also be changed fundamentally so
it is used to help students learning and to
improve instruction, not just to rank students or
to certify the end products of learning. The
nearly exclusive use of normative tests in the
United States to compare students to one another
and to determine life chances is the key factor
behind the development of classroom cultures that
are dominated by an exchange value of learning,
where students perform to please the teacher or
to get good grades rather than to pursue a
compelling purpose. By contrast, in classrooms
where participation in learning is motivated by
its use value, students and teachers would have a
shared understanding that finding out what makes
sense and what does not is a joint and worthwhile
project, one that is essential to taking the next
steps in learning. To serve this end, more
specific principles of classroom assessment
require that expectations and intermediate steps
for improvement be made visible to students and
that students be actively involved in evaluating
their own work However, I would argue that
changing assessment practices is the most
difficult because of the continued influence of
external standardized tests and because most
teachers have limited training beyond writing
objectives and familiarity with traditional item
formats to prepare them to assess their
students understandings (Ellwien Graue, 1995).
(p1080)

• A broader range of assessment tools is needed to
  capture important learning goals and to more
  directly connect assessment to ongoing
  instruction. As illustrated above, the most
  obvious reform has been to devise more open-ended
  performance tasks to ensure that students are
  able to reason critically, to solve complex
  problems, and to apply their knowledge in
  real-world contexts. In addition, if
  instructional goals include developing students
  metacognitive abilities, fostering important
  dispositions, and socializing students into the
  discourse and practices of academic disciplines,
  then it is essential that classroom routines and
  accompanying assessments reflect these goals as
  well. Furthermore, if assessment insights are to
  be used to move learning along rather than merely
  tally how much learning has occurred so far, then
  assessment has to occur in the middle of
  instruction, not just at end points, and must
  focus on processes of learning what strategies
  are children using not just outcomes. In
  response to these needs, the armamentarium for
  data gathering has been expanded to include
  observations, clinical interviews, reflective
  journals, oral presentation, work samples,
  projects, and portfolios. (p1086)
• Improving the content of assessments is important
  but is not sufficient to ensure that assessment
  will be used to enhance learning. In this
  setting, I consider the changes in classroom
  practices that are also needed to allow
  assessment to be used as part of the learning
  process. How should the culture of the classroom
  be changed so that students and teachers look to
  assessment as a source of insight and help rather
  than as the occasion for meting out rewards and
  punishments? In particular, how is learning
  helped by assessing prior knowledge and providing
  feedback as part of instruction? How might
  assessment-based classroom routines, such as
  reviewing evaluation criteria and engaging
  students in self-assessment, be used to develop
  metacognitive skills and students responsibility
  for their own learning? How might these endeavors
  become so seamlessly a part of classroom
  discourse that students develop a learning
  orientation that is motivated by the desire to
  increase their competence instead of the need to
  perform to get good grades or to please the
  teacher? As part of this collaborative bargain,
  how might teachers explicitly use assessment to
  revise and adapt instruction? (p1090)

Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
23
Shepard excerpts continued. 3
In addition to using assessment to monitor and
promote individual students learning, classroom
assessment should also be used to examine and
improve teaching practices. Although a number of
authoratative sources (National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 1995 National
Forum on Assessment, 1995 National Research
Council, 1996 Shepard, Kagan, Wurtz, 1998)
have acknowledged the importance of using
assessment data as a tool for systematic
reflection and teacher learning, much less
empirical research or formal theorizing has been
done regarding this collateral use of student
assessment. How is assessment used to learn about
ones own pedagogy different from the use of
assessment data to promote individual student
growth? Is one just the aggregation of data from
the other (e.g., the whole class is struggling
with a concept versus three students who need
extra help)? Although reform rhetoric implies
that shared understanding exists about what it
means to use assessment data to improve
instruction, examples offered suggest
considerable ambiguity. (p1093) Clearly, the
abilities needed to implement a reformed vision
of curriculum and classroom assessment are
daunting reminiscent of Cremins (1961) earlier
observation that progressive education required
infinitely skilled teachers. Being able to ask
the right questions at the right time, anticipate
conceptual pitfalls, and have at the ready a
repertoire of tasks that will help students take
the next steps requires deep knowledge of subject
matter. Teachers will also need help in learning
to use assessment in new ways. They will need a
theory of motivation and a sense of how to
develop a classroom culture with learning at its
center. Given that new ideas about the role of
assessment are likely to be at odds with
prevailing beliefs, teachers will need assistance
to reflect on their own beliefs and those of
students, colleagues, parents, and school
administrators. Because teachers beliefs,
knowledge, and skills are pivotal in bringing
about change in assessment practices, teachers
knowledge and beliefs should be a primary site
for research. (p1097)
Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
24
PARAMETER SETTING MAP GG (grades 9-12
included, but see ATTACHMENT C for related
comments and questions)
The developmental level(s) of students one will
be working with as learners
Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
25
PARAMETER SETTING MAP HH (left unchanged and
undiscussed)
Subject area(s) and related performance standards
within which ones student will be doing their
learning
Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)
26
PARAMETER SETTING MAP I I
Domains of student learning in which all teachers
need to demonstrate their effectiveness as
facilitators of learning as a condition of
INITIAL licensure
(This map is a draft document. It emerged from
recommendations made near the close of the
summer work session, and has not been critiqued)
Coalition for Connecting Teaching, Teacher
Preparation, and P-12 Learning (the CTPL
Coalition)