Professional Education Unit

December 11, 2013

1
 Table of Contents

Contents
Contents.........................................................................................................................................................2
4.1 Overview..................................................................................................................................................4
4.2 Vision and Mission – Institution and Unit................................................................................................ 5
Institution Vision and Mission......................................................................................5
Unit Vision...................................................................................................................5
Unit Mission................................................................................................................6
4.3 Philosophy, Purposes, Goals and Standards............................................................................................6
Moving Beyond the Boundaries of Time and Place....................................................6
Overcoming Boundaries of Perceived Student Limitations ........................................7
Expanding Beyond the Status Quo.............................................................................8
Standards..................................................................................................................10
National Standards ..................................................................................................10
State Standards .......................................................................................................10
University Standards.................................................................................................11
4.4 Knowledge Bases Supporting the Unit’s Six Objectives.........................................................................12
#1 - Teaching for Learning .......................................................................................12
#2 - Analysis, Reflection and Continuous Improvement ..............................14
#3 - Technology Integration and Digital Citizenship..................................................15
#4 - Creativity, Innovativeness, and Adaptability......................................................17
#5 - Local, National and Global Community..............................................................18
#6 - Instructional Leadership ....................................................................................20
4.5 Candidate Proficiencies, Professional Dispositions, and Standards Alignment....................................21
Candidate Proficiencies............................................................................................21
Professional Dispositions .........................................................................................24
Standards, Proficiencies, and Professional Dispositions Alignment ........................25
4.6 Summary of Unit’s Assessment System................................................................................................. 28
4.6.1 Transition Points..............................................................................................28
4.6.2 Key Assessments..........................................................................................30

2
 4.6.3 Process for Assuring Assessments are Fair, Accurate, Consistent, and Free
from Bias...................................................................................................................33
4.6.4 System for Handling Candidates Who Have Not Met Unit Expectations.......34
4.6.5 Plan for Evaluating Unit Operations.................................................................35
4.6.6Summary of Candidate Performance on Assessments at Admission...............37
4.6.7 Summary of Candidate Performance on Assessments at Exit.........................42
Other Exit Performance Comments on MAT and MEd Candidates..........................44
References.................................................................................................................................................... 45

3
4.1 Overview
The Professional Education Unit within the Graduate School of University of Maryland,
University College (UMUC) is committed to the concept of Teaching and Leading
Beyond Boundaries. Through the work of the Unit’s Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT)
and Master of Education in Instructional Technology (MEd) programs, the Unit seeks to
surpass boundaries of time and place, conceptions about the limitations of students,
and maintenance of the status quo in teaching, learning and leading. Through
innovative online instruction and dynamic field-based experiences, candidates not only
experience education that reaches beyond these boundaries, they also are prepared to
implement transformational instruction in their own classrooms.

The Unit’s vision is to establish a global learning community of educators, where the
boundaries outlined above are crossed and all candidates/students engage in highly
effective educational experiences. Through cohesive standards alignment, outcomes,
objectives, and an assessment system that emphasizes continuous improvement, the
Professional Education Unit works to realize this vision in every course and with every
candidate. To meet this outcome, the Unit strives to instill respect for diversity, respect
for others and self, global awareness, high expectations of self and students, advocacy,
dedication, flexibility, reflection, professional conduct, and continuous improvement.

The six objectives threaded throughout the Unit’s programs, function as tools for
meeting the high expectations expressed above and are identified by objective
headings as follows:

1. Teaching for Learning

2. Analysis, Reflection and Continuous Improvement
3. Technology Integration and Digital Citizenship
4. Creativity, Innovativeness, and Adaptability
5. Local, National and Global Community
6. Instructional Leadership

Through the Unit’s Assessment System and an aligned Graduate School Assessment,
data from key assessments, professional disposition assessments, and performance at
transition points are collected and analyzed continuously to assess candidate, program,
and Unit performance for meeting learning and program objectives. In addition,
feedback surveys provide valuable information about candidate and instructor
experiences within the two Professional Education Unit programs. Regular, internal
processes for data analysis and continuous improvement are implemented, and
progress is monitored to ensure that the Unit is meeting expectations.

Over a three-year period the Unit, with its key stakeholders, developed this Conceptual
Framework in iterative stages beginning with the redevelopment of the MAT program in
2009. The first stage involved creating a core value and guiding principles to drive all
planning in the Unit. The second involved articulation of these concepts through basic

4
beliefs and emphases. The third involved creating a fully elaborated "Conceptual
Framework Working Draft" for hands-on use by Unit leadership, faculty, and students.
The final stage involved production of this document to meet The National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) pre-conditions.

4.2 Vision and Mission – Institution and Unit

Institution Vision and Mission

The UMUC mission is to offer top-quality educational opportunities to adult students in

Maryland, the nation, and the world; setting the global standard of excellence in adult
education. The global reach of the University is due largely to UMUC’s presence on
U.S. military bases and its online delivery.

By offering academic programs that are respected, accessible, and affordable, UMUC
broadens the range of career opportunities available to students, improves opportunities
for life-long learning, and maximizes economic and intellectual contributions to Maryland
and beyond. The vision of the university is to be the leading global university
distinguished by its educational quality, its commitment to student success, and the
accessibility of its programs.

Unit Vision

The work of UMUC’s Professional Education Unit is grounded in the university vision
and mission and inspired by the aligned Unit vision of Teaching and Leading Beyond
Boundaries. The Unit works tirelessly to identify boundaries that stand in the way of high
levels of achievement for all preK-12 students and to pursue effective practices that
move educators beyond these boundaries. The Unit’s vision, mission, objectives, and
desired candidate professional dispositions all converge on the notion of candidates’
reaching beyond boundaries and combining teaching and leading to provide exceptional
learning experiences for all preK-12 students.

In keeping with UMUC’s commitment to educating adults for their professional roles,
UMUC seeks to move beyond the boundaries of traditional teacher preparation through
its virtual delivery features and its basis in clinical practice. UMUC and the Unit fully
endorse the principles of Transforming Teacher Education Through Clinical Practice: A
National Strategy to Prepare Effective Educators (NCATE, 2010). In this report, the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education’s (NCATE) Blue Ribbon Panel
on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning emphasize the
need for clinical practice to take a central role in teacher preparation. UMUC’s program
was founded on the centrality of clinical practice, as recommended in Maryland’s
Teacher Education Task Force Report, commonly known as Maryland’s Redesign for
Teacher Education (MHEC, 1995), and Maryland, with its teacher education partners,
has signed a letter of intent to implement the Blue Ribbon Panel’s agenda, as a member
of the NCATE Alliance for Clinical Teacher Preparation.

5
Unit Mission

The Unit’s mission, emerging from its vision of Teaching and Leading Beyond
Boundaries, is to prepare educators who:

1. Can say with conviction: a) I know my students; b) I know all my students can
learn at high levels; and c) I know my work can promote high levels of learning
for all students;
2. Reach beyond boundaries to promote student success;
3. Engage all students in highly effective educational experiences; and
4. Prepare students for a changing world

The aim is to imbue in each candidate a personal responsibility for preK-12 student’s
growth, development, and success in college, career, and community. Each of the
Unit’s objectives is depicted through the cover graphic and contributes to the Unit’s
mission. Beginning with the start of the programs, through field experiences to capstone
seminars and beyond, the Unit aligns its work toward its mission.

4.3 Philosophy, Purposes, Goals and Standards

“Simply pushing harder within the old boundaries will not do”
Karl Weick, American Organizational Theorist, 1936-

The philosophy undergirding the UMUC Professional Education Unit’s programs is

based on a commitment to Teaching and Leading Beyond Boundaries and to the vision
articulated above. No amount of innovation and improvement within the old boundaries
or ways of thinking is sufficient; instead the Unit must teach and lead beyond
boundaries so that it prepares its candidates to do the same with their students, meeting
the needs of all learners in the context of an ever-evolving, complex world. Three main
boundaries currently constrain educational opportunity: Time and Place, Conceptions
about the Limitations of Students, and Maintenance of the Status Quo in Teaching,
Learning and Leading.

The UMUC Professional Education Unit seeks not only to provide candidates with the
knowledge, skills and dispositions to reach beyond these boundaries to provide
students with new educational opportunities but also to model teaching, learning and
leading beyond these boundaries. With the belief that all students can learn at high
levels as its core proposition, the unit prepares educators to reach and teach each
student for that student’s academic success.

Moving Beyond the Boundaries of Time and Place

The Professional Education Unit is well suited to embrace the responsibility of Teaching
and Leading Beyond Boundaries in preparing professional educators. Through its high

6
quality online programs, the Unit makes teacher education available to candidates for
whom face-to-face education is not a realistic or ideal option. The Unit capitalizes on
UMUC’s unique institutional capacity to reach geographically dispersed individuals who
may not otherwise readily access high-quality opportunities for earning teacher
certification or enhancing their skills and performance as practicing educators. The
Unit’s commitment to online education for the working adult learner crosses boundaries
of brick and mortar, state, continent and time zone to educate admitted candidates of
any age, background, or geographic location in an “anytime, anywhere” interactive
format. The Unit’s approach to “anytime, anywhere” learning is accessible, cutting edge
and highly personalized for individual, as well as collective, candidate growth and
development.

Within the online classroom, candidates interact primarily in an asynchronous

environment. Candidates log-on through the Internet from anywhere in the world and
engage in the classroom area at any time of day or night, in any time zone. Any
synchronous activities are recorded and available for candidate playback, if they were
unable to attend a live session. This approach is consistent with contemporary learning
models and lifestyles, as well as best practices in distance education (Porto & Kurtz,
2006). Importantly, the Unit’s online classroom provides a model for candidates to use
with their own students to broaden opportunities for student interaction and self-directed
learning outside school hours and school walls.

Just as candidates are expected to reach beyond familiar communication conventions,

they are expected to develop broad views of teaching and learning now and in the near
future. Online learning and hybrid K-12 schools are becoming more and more prevalent
in today’s educational landscape. Their rapid growth offers possibilities for
unprecedented change in the way schools engage learners and offer possibilities that
reach beyond limitations of traditional schooling. Studying and modeling the
effectiveness of novel approaches is essential to achieving a vision of Teaching and
Leading Beyond Boundaries and providing the tools to deliver the most effective
instruction to preK-12 students.

Candidates in the Unit are encouraged to reach beyond the typical online classroom of
UMUC’s Learning Management System, its discussion boards and study group areas,
and communicate and collaborate through blogs, wikis, social networking sites, virtual
learning environments and simulated learning activities (Barkland & Kush, 2009). By
using such tools to transform their own learning, candidates are able to apply
knowledge to their own classrooms and engage preK-12 students in new ways with
academic content and one another. By meeting in a virtual world, students can feel as if
they are in the same room with others who may be many miles away.

Overcoming Boundaries of Perceived Student Limitations

Throughout the Unit’s programs, candidates explore research that challenges

commonly held beliefs about students. Related to commonly held beliefs are limited
expectations about a student or a group’s potential for learning.

7
Candidates study ways to meet the specific needs of linguistically-diverse students and
students with special needs (Grassi & Barker, 2010; Sabornie & deBettencourt, 2009).
Alternative assessment practices (Bowen & Rude, 2006) and technology interventions
are explored as methods for allowing all students to access high-level curricular material
and express what they know and can do.

Due to the racial, ethnic, cultural, and language diversity found in schools, all educators
must become “reflective citizens in pluralistic democratic nation-states” (Banks, 2001, p.
5). Candidates explore texts and participate in critical discussions around
institutionalized and personalized stereotyping and engage in discussions that allow
them to develop their understandings. Candidates often take an interest in exploring
how to recognize and change stereotypical attitudes toward subgroups, such as those
students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or questioning (LGBTQ) (Roeck,
2008). Information such as the Safe at School report (Biegel & Kuehl, 2010) informs
ways that educators can promote learning by recognizing, embracing and cultivating
community among all races, ethnicities, backgrounds, socioeconomic conditions, sexual
orientations and special needs.

At the institutional level, UMUC prides itself on the diversity of candidates and the
multicultural, often multinational, perspectives in their classrooms. UMUC’s unique
commitment is to educate learners, whoever they are, regardless of their age,
background, prior experiences, and the complexities of their daily lives. Currently, the
university has no majority population in terms of ethnicity, representing the most diverse
student population of any institution in the University System of Maryland, including the
historically black institutions (UMUC, 2009). Consistent with the values of the university
as a whole, candidates prepare to teach all students.

UMUC’s Professional Education Unit strives to build belief among candidates that
proficiency standards can be achieved with all students. Through a process of teaching
for learning and continuous improvement, candidates learn to use data and feedback
from student assessments to drive curricular and instructional changes. By encouraging
candidates to take a good look at their students, beyond labels, stereotypes and
preconceived notions, the Professional Education Unit strives to lead educators beyond
traditional boundaries and shatter limitations of achievement.

Expanding Beyond the Status Quo

Candidates explore many ways that their professional educator roles empower them as
change leaders, advocates, and innovators. They recognize that a limitation of
schooling, and therefore, of students to excel, derives in part from people and
institutions using the same instructional practices over and over. The Unit challenges
candidates to move from how things are to how they might become. While this
orientation within the Unit is broad in meaning, an example of moving candidates to go
beyond is the Unit’s emphasis on instructional technology in the changing educational
world.

Candidates within the Professional Education Unit are digital learners by virtue of their

8
participation in online courses, but candidates come with vastly different levels of
technological literacy. Supported through UMUC’s multiple resources, candidates are
immersed in technology integration in ways that help them gain the skills they need to
succeed, not only in their classes, but also in a quickly changing global environment.
Assessment of technology fluency is ongoing, with benchmarks for measuring evidence
of technology integration skills, and support is provided for those students who require
it.

Current research being conducted within the Professional Education Unit is exploring
the effects of modeling e-teaching practices and cutting edge technological solutions for
prospective and current teachers (Schwartz-Bechet, 2010). Although the study is in its
early stages, best practices are emerging in the area of technological modeling for
educators.

The Professional Education Unit’s online instructors utilize technologies within their
classes to promote technology use for strengthening and transforming learning.
Instructors are challenged each semester to integrate new technology into their
teaching repertoire. Faculty meetings within the Unit regularly feature an instructor
modeling the classroom use of a new tool. Candidates use multiple information,
communication and collaboration technologies within the online classrooms and with
students in schools, helping them prepare for advocacy change agent roles throughout
their careers.

Research has demonstrated the importance of collaboration among teachers, content

area specialists and education professors (NCATE, 2010; Friedman & Wallace, 2006),
and the Professional Education Unit is working to design video links and live or
asynchronous chat to facilitate these interactions. Using virtual tools within the Unit’s
network of clinical sites may lead to an emerging innovation wherein a partner school
becomes a virtual learning hub for candidates and teachers in other locations.
Candidates would include virtual resources, allowing them to view classroom lessons,
interact with teachers, debrief lessons, ask questions, and tutor students, thereby
serving on-site teacher candidates and their off-site peers simultaneously, as well as the
teachers and students in the school.

In these many ways, UMUC’s Professional Education Unit is reaching beyond

boundaries of time, place, perceived limitations, and the status quo to develop exciting
new possibilities for candidates and the students they serve. By knowing students,
valuing all students as capable learners, and believing in one’s own efficacy in working
with all students, the professional educator realizes the ability to Teach and Lead
Beyond Boundaries. Through teaching for learning; analysis, reflection and continuous
improvement; technology integration and digital citizenship, creativity, innovativeness,
and adaptability; local, national and global community; and instructional leadership, the
professional educator enacts professional dispositions and facilitates the development
of the learner beyond any boundaries that limit educational success.

9
Standards

A number of national, state and university standards guide the work of UMUC’s
Professional Education Unit. Each of these standards is closely aligned with unit and
program objectives to ensure coherent integration of standards in pursuit of Unit
outcomes.

National Standards

UMUC’s Professional Education Unit is deeply committed to meeting NCATE’s Unit and
program standards put forth by NCATE. In addition, the Professional Education Unit’s
programs align with the following national standards: the Interstate Teacher
Assessment and Support Consortium Principles (InTASC), the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) Five Core Propositions, the Partnership for
21st Century Skills’ Framework, and Learning Forward (formerly the National Staff
Development Council) Standards. Specific alignment of these standards with unit and
Unit objectives is outlined in Program Accountability section 4.6.

In addition the following disciplinary-based standards are assessed by entry

requirements and also infused throughout the curriculum of the MAT and MEd
programs. They are each detailed in Specialty Professional Association (SPA)
assessments and reports documented by the Professional Education Unit: American
Council for Teaching Foreign Languages Standards (ACTFL); International Society of
Technology in Education (ISTE) Secondary Computer Science Education Standards
and ISTE’s Technology Coach Standards; National Council of Teachers of English
(NCTE) English/Language Arts Standards; National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM) Standards; National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
Standards; National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) Standards. In addition to the
SPA standards, the Unit is guided by the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS) – Standards by Certificate Area.

State Standards

At the State level, the Unit programs align with the Maryland Institutional Performance
Criteria based on the Redesign for Teacher Education (MSDE, 2011). Similar to NCATE
standards, the Institutional Performance Criteria (2011) provide guidance for program
design and implementation and are aligned with Maryland’s Redesign for Teacher
Education (MHEC, 1995). Standards and indicators in the areas of Strong Academic
Background, Extensive Internship, Performance Assessment, Linkage with preK-12
Priorities, and State Approval guide the State’s review of the Professional Education
Unit’s programs and align with the recommendations of NCATE’s Blue Ribbon Panel
(NCATE, 2010). While both the MAT and the MEd include field experiences in all
courses, the MAT’s field experiences expand and intensify throughout the program to
prepare candidates for their intensive 16-week internship. Evidence of standards-based
criteria is infused across all Unit objectives.

Unit programs also align with Maryland Teacher Technology Standards (MTTS). The

10
State of Maryland expects all teachers to meet these standards, which were adapted
from the International Society of Technology in Education’s National Educational
Technology Standards for Teachers and Students Through explicit assignments, each
of the programs in the Unit directly assesses the candidate’s integration of technology to
maximize preK-12 student learning. Specific alignment of these standards with Unit
objectives is outlined in Program Accountability, section 4.6.

The Unit participates in Maryland’s P-20 community with other Maryland teacher
education units to incorporate the Common Core State Standards and help prepare
candidates for the associated assessments. All Maryland K-12 standards align with the
Common Core. Furthermore, for non-Maryland candidates, the centrality of the
Common Core facilitates their professional preparation.

University Standards

The Professional Education Unit’s work also aligns with university standards. University-
wide standards for students are based on the educational missions of UMUC’s
undergraduate and graduate programs. Institutional-level outcomes also reflect
competency areas identified in Standard 12 of the Middle States Commission’s
Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (2006) and adopted by the Maryland
Higher Education Commission as the basis of mandatory reporting categories within the
triennial assessment report required of the state’s higher education institutions. In the
Graduate School, institutional standards are reflected as Student Learning Expectations
(SLE’s), as provided in the table below. These areas provide a structure for institution-
wide learning outcomes assessment. Specific alignment of these standards with the
Unit objectives is outlined in Program Accountability, section 4.6.

11
Table 1: UMUC Graduate School SLE’s

UMUC Graduate School Student Learning Expectations (SLEs)

Written Produce writing that meets expectations for format,
Communication organization, content, purpose, and audience.

Technology Fluency Demonstrate an understanding of information technology broad

enough to apply technology productively to academic studies,
work, and everyday life.
Information Literacy Demonstrate the ability to use libraries and other information
resources to effectively locate, select, and evaluate needed
information.
Critical Thinking Demonstrate the use of analytical skills and reflective
processing of information.
Content/Discipline- Demonstrate knowledge and competencies specific to program
Specific Knowledge or major area of study.

4.4 Knowledge Bases Supporting the Unit’s Six Objectives

As the Unit with its key stakeholders began to envision its mission, vision, and guiding
principles, several themes emerged. These themes came to be understood as
organizing principles for how to deliver the Unit’s programs to meet the high standards
of the overarching vision, Teaching and Leading Beyond Boundaries. Functionally, they
became the bases for the Unit’s six objectives in the areas of: (1) Teaching and
Learning; (2) Analysis, Reflection, and Continuous Improvement; (3) Technology
Integration and Digital Citizenship; (4) Creativity, Innovativeness, and Adaptability; (5)
Local, National, and Global Community; and (6) Instructional Leadership.

This section presents each objective with relevant knowledge bases, including theories,
research, the wisdom of practice, and the policies and principles that are essential
supports of the Conceptual Framework. Proficiencies associated with each objective are
presented in section 4.5.

#1 - Teaching for Learning

Objective: The candidate acts upon academic content, professional and pedagogical
knowledge, and understanding of students to maximize student achievement.

The Teaching for Learning objective allows candidates to act upon their foundational
values, knowledge, and skills to promote high levels of learning for all students by
breaking down boundaries of perception about student limitation and engaging all
students in highly-effective educational experiences that meet individual needs. A well-
accepted tenet of education is that all teachers must know the subjects they teach and

12
how to teach those subjects to a diverse student body (NBPTS, 2002; Danielson, 2009).
Content expertise is founded upon theoretical knowledge, concepts, ideas, facts,
figures, and the ability to make interrelated connections across disciplines and to the
global society.
While educators must deeply understand their own disciplinary field and the way in
which the field is connected with other related subjects, they must also be able to
integrate that disciplinary knowledge with a deep understanding of the learner and
his/her life in order to design meaningful instruction (Snowman, McCown, & Biehler,
2009). Educators who are learner-centered plan to accommodate and celebrate
learning styles, individuality and diversity, special needs and behavioral differences.
They are based on student intelligences, special needs and constructivist lessons
(Powell & Kalina, 2009) that build on student understandings. These teachers are
sensitive to developmental patterns of student growth and are able to move students
toward increasingly complex understandings to facilitate student achievement. They
employ various types of accommodations, including presentation mode
accommodations, response mode accommodations, timing and scheduling
accommodations, setting accommodations and linguistic accommodations (Salend,
2008) to meet the needs not only of students with special needs, but any student who
requires a differentiated approach.

Selander (2008) speaks of moving from the traditional format of designed information
and teaching to developing designs for learning. By designing instruction that merges
pedagogical theory, best practice in instruction, knowledge of content and
understanding of the learner, educators may design comprehensive systems of learning
support that result in success for all students. Teaching for learning provides students
with instruction that meets their learning needs and captures their imaginations.

In the MEd program, candidates often are practicing teachers, so they are able to, not
only design learning activities, but also implement and refine these activities in the
classroom throughout their program. Candidates who are not currently teaching
implement lessons in K-12 schools as well (e.g., working with practicing teachers),
although occasionally an alternative assignment is given regarding implementation.
Both teachers and non-teachers in the program observe and interview teachers,
assistive technology specialists, and technology integration specialists. Often,
candidates also implement professional development for other teachers and
communicate and collaborate with actual school stakeholders through technology. In all
cases, candidates are firmly focused on delivering instruction to real children who bring
great variety to the learning situation. The Unit’s courses are grounded in clinical
practice and focused on the learning needs of preK-12 students (NCATE, 2010).

In the MAT program, Unit instructors design student profiles for candidates to consider
as they plan their lessons and units. Field experiences build candidate readiness for
their 16-week internship, including field assignments to observe a teacher and his/her
class, interview the teacher as a follow-up activity, and then work together in teaching
teams to design a strategy lesson to meet the needs of students in the observed class.
Candidates participate in virtual or in-person tutoring, where they design and deliver

13
instruction based on student needs, local standards and comments of the students’
classroom teacher. The internship focuses candidates on achievement of students in
their content specific classes, Candidates work collaboratively with their mentor,
university supervisor, and other educators to design and deliver instruction.

Additionally, Unit instructors model the process of teaching for learning through
interaction with candidates. Online instructor presence and the role of interactivity in
establishing this presence is essential to successful online education (Garret,
Mandernach, Gonzales & Garrett, 2006). Therefore, professors offer various methods of
communication, including private message, online chat, telephone, webcam, or webinar
to meet the individual’s specific learning preferences.

#2 - Analysis, Reflection and Continuous Improvement

Objective: The candidate engages in an ongoing process of reflection, re-planning,

testing, and refining for continuous improvement.

The second objective focuses on the process of analysis, reflection and continuous
improvement, which supports the attainment of the Unit’s outcomes in its insistence that
there is always a way to increase student achievement, decrease achievement gaps,
and improve processes of teaching and learning. This objective is closely related to
Teaching for Learning because the data that are analyzed through inquiry are fed into
the instructional design process to create more effective educational experiences for
students.

Schön (1983, 1987) describes possibilities for educating the reflective practitioner to
engage in reflection-in-action as well as reflection-on-action. Within the Unit, both types
of reflection are encouraged as UMUC candidates are engaged in learning experiences
that allow them to see and attend to progressively more complex representations of the
teaching-learning situation and of the learners themselves. It is through reflection that
the teacher applies a repertoire of theoretical understandings and analytical best
practice to reframe situations in such a way that next steps can be formulated.

Effective, meaningful assessment assists teachers in truly understanding the learner

and developing instruction to meet specific physical, intellectual, emotional and social
needs of the individual. Educators must consider not only assessment of learning, which
provides information about what has been accomplished in a unit of study that has been
completed, but also assessment for learning, which provides formative information
about student constructions of understandings and involves students directly in their
own assessment (Stiggins & Chappius, 2006). Formative and summative assessments
aligned with learning goals (which themselves have been aligned with curricular
standards) provide useful information for data-driven instructional decision-making and
continuous improvement of instruction (Boudett, City & Mournane, 2006). Assessment
design must meet standards, as documented by the American Educational Research
Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on
Measurement in Education (1999).

14
Educators must make data part of an ongoing cycle of instructional improvement
(Hamilton, Halverson, Jackson, Mandinach, Supovitz & Wayman, 2009). The Unit’s
candidates must possess understanding of technology-based assessments,
performance assessments, alternative assessments such as portfolios, traditional
classroom assessments, standardized testing, and ongoing, embedded assessments
(such as those facilitated by automated student response systems), as well as the uses
of scoring tools such as rubrics. Candidates must be able to create assessments that
are fair and unbiased and must understand the concepts of validity and reliability and
the usefulness of triangulation of results from multiple assessments to gain a full
understanding of assessment data. Educators must possess skills that engage learners
in setting their own goals and examining their own performances. Candidate skills
support high expectations for their students through self and peer evaluation, use of
rubrics and clearly communicated expectations.

Just as educators use diagnostic and formative assessment data to continuously refine
instruction of individual students, teams of educators must use data about teaching and
learning not only to refine but re-imagine possibilities for Teaching and Leading Beyond
Boundaries. Continuous improvement should be purposeful, as educators work together
to transform teaching and learning for student success. With continuous improvement
as thematic in the preparation of the Unit’s candidates, the Unit itself mirrors this
objective, as articulated in the assessment system summary in Section 4.6.

Reflection and action planning are deeply embedded in the work of the Unit; systematic
reflection occurs at the Unit level, the program level, and the course level, and every
candidate engages in reflective practices in every course. Assignments typically involve
an element of reflection, often in a public space such as a discussion board, where
other students can benefit from the expressed learning of colleagues (Shoffner, 2009).
In addition, portfolios are used to encourage deep reflection on learning (Herner-
Patnode & Hea-Jin, 2009). Each portfolio entry requires a reflective piece in which the
candidate connects the artifact to the appropriate standard, analyzes personal learning,
and develops a plan for continued improvement.

In the MAT program, candidates develop hypotheses to test during their field
experiences. From these scaffolded experiences, candidates build up to a multi-
semester action research project, including a review of literature, proposal writing, and
two rounds of action research related to student learning. The culmination of the action
research project is a presentation to the educational community beyond UMUC.
Teachers who engage in action research report increased confidence, empowerment,
better use of data to inform practice, and more reflection about student needs (Bradley-
Levine, Smity & Carr, 2009).

#3 - Technology Integration and Digital Citizenship

Objective: The candidate demonstrates selection and integration of technology to

15
deepen and personalize student learning and to prepare students to participate actively
and ethically in a digitally connected world.

Technology integration offers many possibilities for working beyond boundaries of time,
place and tradition. It also provides tools that can be used to prepare preK-12 students
to control their own learning, make choices, and work with real-world and complex
problems, all of which foster creative connections and understandings (Ferrari, Cachia
& Punie, 2009; ISTE, 2007; 2008; P21, 2009). The Technology Integration objective
ensures candidates will demonstrate selection, fluent use, application and integration of
technology to maximize student achievement while assuring that preK-12 students meet
technology literacy proficiencies. The technology integration curriculum within the Unit is
aligned with standards and informed by the National Education Technology Plan (U.S.
Department of Education, 2010). This plan outlines a model for learning that is engaging
and tailored to students’ needs and interests, a model for assessment that measures
the full range of college and career ready standards and makes use of real-time data for
decision making, a model of teaching in which educators have access to the people and
resources they need to be highly-effective, and a model of productivity in which
technology tools are used to increase the efficiency of educational systems.

Traditionally, technology has been used most often in classrooms to deliver content
(Duffy, 2008), but technology has a greater potential to provide a student-centered,
student-guided experience that allows for collaboration and creativity. With this view of
technology, the student moves from being a consumer of content to a producer of
content. Technology can also facilitate student-generated assessment, evaluation and
personalization of information, on demand access to media, and communication.

Technology can provide preK-12 students with access to high-tech tools, allowing
access to telescopes, microscopes, and other tools that were once only accessible by
professionals (Brown & Adler, 2008). Webquests and simulations can provide students
with problem-solving scenarios and then facilitate the use of web-based resources for
solution generation. Educators need not only know how to create webquests, but also
how to increase higher-order thinking skills and technology integration within webquest
design (Polly & Ausband, 2009). Students can use technology to create media and
express current understandings. Elgort, Smith and Toland (2008) see value in using
wikis as collaboration tools. Their findings indicate that wikis encourage better individual
participation and are a good tool for collecting and organizing information for group
projects. As part of any use of technology in the class, candidates are prepared to teach
students how use technology safely, responsibly, and ethically.

Integrating principles of technology into even low-tech classes can help motivate
learners, differentiate instruction, and increase student learning. Jackson (2009)
proposes course design that emulates video games, with various levels at which to
complete assignments, multiple tries, and earned points. By integrating technology
purposefully, with a firm commitment to achievement for all students, educators can
provide tools for reaching beyond boundaries and ensuring that all children learn at high
levels.

16
As part of any use of technology in the classroom, candidates are prepared to teach
students how to use technology safely, responsibly, and ethically. As the International
Society of Technology in Education makes explicit in its student standard on digital
citizenship, all students must “understand human, cultural, and societal issues related to
technology and practice legal and ethical behavior.”

Graduate students within the Professional Education Unit are digital learners by virtue of
their participation in online courses. In order for UMUC candidates to participate
effectively as class members, they must succeed in navigating Learning Management
System (LMS) features such as online conferences, chats, and additionally online series
of articles and e-book databases located through the UMUC website. In this way,
candidates experience firsthand the benefits and limitations of technology through their
own learning. MAT students integrate technology into lesson and unit plans, explore
assistive technology, may create animations and use avatars, and work in groups to
design technology-rich lessons. Candidates are encouraged to be proactive in their
explorations of effective tools for instruction, following a model of innovation rooted in
scholarship. The MEd is a program in instructional technology.

#4 - Creativity, Innovativeness, and Adaptability

Objective: The candidate integrates creativity, innovativeness, and adaptability into the
curriculum, promoting opportunities for discovery, deep learning, and originality.

Creativity, innovativeness, and adaptability are increasingly important to teaching and

learning given the rapidity of change in the 21st century. If today’s kindergarteners work
until age 65, they will retire in the year 2082. Education must prepare students for
productivity within a workforce that is continually changing, using technology that does
not yet exist, in order to solve problems that have yet to be identified (Gunderson,
Jones, & Scanland, 2005). The Unit’s candidates must teach their students to apply
current knowledge to new realities and to create new knowledge. “Creativity is vital to
an effective education process and further, creative thinking is critically important to the
future of our country” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010, n.p.).

With no universally agreed upon definition of creativity and innovativeness (Beghetto,

2005; Brookhart, 2010; Cennamo, Ross & Ertmer, 2010; Treffinger, Young, Selby &
Shepardson, 2002), the Unit begins with the core concept that “all individuals carry the
capacity to create with innovation, expression, and imagination” (Hebert, 2010, p. 149).
These abilities promote adaptability and depend upon content-specific as well as
general knowledge and skill. Additionally, the Unit and its candidates understand that
these vital 21st century skills are not solely the province of a select few who are gifted
with innate artistic or intellectual talent. Creativity, innovativeness, and adaptability
should be identified and nurtured in students as part of the modern learning process.

In an assessment context, creativity is linked to a concept of deep understanding,

“Getting evidence of understanding means crafting assessments for transferability,
finding if students can take their learning and use it wisely, flexibly, creatively” (Wiggins
& McTighe, 2005, p. 48). The Unit’s candidates are expected to develop creative
17
learning assessments for students that measure the achievement of content-related
learning objectives.

For the candidate, part of the grounding in this Unit objective is the fundamental
understanding of the student as an innovator and constructor of meaning. Piaget states,
“[T]o understand is to invent. Without invention, learning results in memorization only”
(Ferrari, Cachia & Punie (2009, p. 20). When students are viewed as meaning-makers,
they are able to utilize their unique voice to express personal understandings of
disciplinary knowledge (Plaut, 2009). Through instruction, students can engage in
escalating strategic, systematic problem-solving processes to construct more complex
understandings of the world. Consequently, they may also expand their communication
abilities, including forms of self-expression regarding their content knowledge. In the
Unit, candidates recognize their pivotal role in helping students make sense of the
complex, progressive world in which they live.

Creativity is often the process of “putting things together in new ways (conceptually or
artistically), observing things others might miss, constructing something novel, using
unusual or unconventional imagery . . . to make an interesting point” (Brookhart, 2010,
p. 124). An adaptation of Bloom’s original taxonomy of educational objectives places
creativity at the pinnacle of the pyramid and subsuming synthesis under creativity. The
following verbs are suggested for developing objectives for creativity: planning,
designing, constructing, producing, devising, making, inventing (Anderson & Krathwhol,
2001). The Professional Education Unit pursues the development of creativity,
innovativeness, and adaptability among its candidates through collaborative work (ISTE,
2007; Jenkins, 2006; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009), where flexible
integration of the ideas of others produces new knowledge. In this way, the Unit
nurtures the creative process in its programs and scaffolds and models for candidates
how to incorporate creativity, innovativeness, and adaptability effectively into their
lessons. In turn, the candidates learn to create learning environments where students
can admit mistakes or missteps so that new steps may lead to new learning. They learn
to adapt their teaching to the teachable moment and model flexibility and creativity
when faced with unexpected circumstances. Candidates need to encourage students to
ask challenging questions, to deal with ambiguity, and to exercise flexibility when
circumstances change.

#5 - Local, National and Global Community

Objective: The candidate integrates into instruction the political, economic, cultural, and
ecological concepts of global citizenship.

Establishing a learning community is now essential in education. Through the Local,

National and Global Community objective, candidates are encouraged to engage
learners in ever-widening communities. Candidates explore the interdependency of
political, social, economic, cultural and ecological concepts and values and apply
professional dispositions to advance global citizenship. As a result, candidates

18
appreciate interdependence at these levels, understand the global dimension of
content, and are able to prepare students for a changing world.

Learning communities are places where individuals engage in active inquiry and
exchange of ideas. The principle of learning in community recognizes that much
learning is a social activity, “socially constructed through conversations about content
and through grounded interactions, especially with others, around problems or actions”
(Brown & Adler, 2008, p. 18). Through collaboration, learners draw on one another’s
knowledge for problem solving and produce results greater than those that could be
produced by the individual. The teacher’s abilities to foster community within the
classroom, to provide an engaging, safe, respectful, and challenging learning
environment, and to model for students appropriate communication across multiple
contexts are all key factors in the successful promotion of student learning.

The learning classroom does not, however, exist in a vacuum, just as it does not always
exist within the walls of an assigned classroom. Maximizing student success requires
teachers to be able to work with others to gather information and resources, and
implement activities that promote success and expand boundaries, and teach
sometimes wherever their students are. Teachers contribute to school effectiveness by
collaborating with other professionals within the school (e.g., other teachers, specialists,
administrators) and outside the school (e.g. families, community members, the
profession at large, in global locations) to enhance student learning (NBPTS, 2002).
Anderson, Sabatelli and Kosutic (2007) have articulated the way in which involvement
of families, community organizations and peers contributes to student motivation and
achievement. Collaboration and community-building involve ongoing, two-way
communication and advocacy where teachers work together with others for the benefit
of students. UMUC’s candidates experience global strands, for example, to enlarge
their vision of teaching and the breadth of their capacities.

Thinking globally leads to redefining relevance. A full understanding of relevance for the
learner includes not only knowledge of local standards, but also, an understanding of
international dimensions of content (Gerzon, 2010). Students and educators may
employ modern technologies to facilitate multinational networking and the development
of international, cross-curricular products. Gahran (2010) asserts that as a society, we
have moved beyond the information age and have entered the connection age. “As we
move forward, tools and ideas that help us make connections will matter more than
those which simply manage information. Connections are the foundation of meaning,
since we only exist in context” (Gahran, 2010, paragraph 9).

The work of the Longview Foundation and the Asia Society informs the programs at
UMUC with their recommendations for the internationalizing of teacher preparation
(Longview Foundation, 2008) and state strategies to prepare globally competent
students (Longview Foundation & Asia Society, 2010). The culture of the Unit promotes
extensive, expansive collaborative skills that reach beyond the local in ever-widening
circles (i.e., regional, national, global); a commitment to issues of equity; respectful,
effective global interactions; multicultural and multinational communication strategies
such as ePals and iEARN; exchange of diversified perspectives; empowerment of

19
human relationships through responsiveness; self-awareness of bias and assumptions
with multicultural attitude; and assurance, trust and empathy among individuals.
Knowledge of world regions, cultures and global issues are valued within courses and
programs in the Unit. Incorporating this perspective occurs numerous ways, from
including the book, Educating for global competence: Preparing our youth to engage
the world (Mansilla & Jackson, 2011), to assigning complex Common Core based
lesson plan assignments with global elements.

UMUC’s Professional Education Unit faculty are engaged with global faculty to conduct
research and candidate interaction that is focused on improving global competencies.
Khalsa (2005) discusses tenets for successful virtual teamwork, trust and identity within
the global learning environment. Khalsa and Woodward (2010) explore the way in which
sequenced learning experiences throughout the Unit’s courses allow teacher candidates
to progressively acquire what is needed to engage K-12 students in global, interactive
understanding and activities. Promoting robust global knowledge and strong
pedagogical skills will allow educators to bring the world into their classrooms.

#6 - Instructional Leadership

Objective: The candidate initiates change and mobilizes the learning community toward
the goal of curriculum and organizational improvement, influencing the practice,
character, and culture for learning.

Teacher leadership is a crucial element of Teaching and Leading Beyond Boundaries.

The Professional Education Unit strives to produce educators who have the abilities not
only to serve as an effective classroom leader of students but the knowledge of how to
advocate for change to benefit students, schools, and the broader profession. Teachers
must be classroom and school leaders: leaders of their students and leaders of their
colleagues in breaking down boundaries for students to promote success for all.

Thornton (2010) claims that at the center of all reform movements are teachers. Without
their full participation and leadership, any effort to reform education has little chance of
success. Higher student achievement, even as defined by traditional measures,
increases in schools with strong teacher leaders (Thornton, 2010; Berry, Daughtrey &
Wieder, 2010). Additionally, Sheppard, Hurley and Dibbon (2010) find that participation
in schoolwide leadership activities accounts for a large amount of variance in teachers’
morale and enthusiasm for their work. Berry, Daughtrey and Wieder (2010) claim that
teachers who report more control over the policies in their schools and greater degrees
of autonomy in their jobs are more likely to remain in teaching and to feel invested in
their careers and schools. Hulpia and Devos (2009) find that distributed leadership, that
is, leadership that is spread across the school, influences a teacher’s organizational
commitment, which is strongly related to teacher effectiveness.

By encouraging candidates to actively critique and discuss one another’s ideas through
online discussion boards and through required group projects in every course, the Unit
provides opportunities for candidates to develop proficiency facilitating groups,

20
responding to and critiquing others professionally, and working collaboratively.
Candidates are guided through review of literature and action research processes and
are required to defend their instructional choices based on student data, best practices,
and theory. MAT candidates present their action research projects to relevant
stakeholder groups at the school or community level. MEd candidates explore ways to
organize and lead teams of teachers in the analysis of data and development of action
plans that are responsive to data. In addition, they develop school and district-wide
plans for technology integration and explore ways to mobilize stakeholders for
coordinated action and better teaching. While the two programs focus on different levels
of leading, all candidates are presented with a view of teaching as a leadership activity.

Because the Professional Education Unit candidates have extensive experience

participating in and facilitating online learning communities through their online learning
experience, they are well positioned to take their leadership capabilities beyond the
classroom and school to develop innovative ways to foster collaboration, support and
learning in the profession. Gutierrez and Bryan (2010) claim that such online work can
overcome the isolationist nature of the profession, and provide wider avenues for
teacher leadership.

Clearly, the six objectives derived from the Unit’s vision lead to the achievement of
Teaching and Leading Beyond Boundaries. Through preparation in teaching for
learning; analysis, reflection and continuous improvement; technology integration and
digital citizenship; creativity, innovativeness, and adaptability; local, national and global
community; and instructional leadership, the Unit’s graduates emerge prepared to do
the work necessary for all students to succeed at high levels. Each of the objectives is
assessed through a comprehensive accountability system that serves as a catalyst to
continuous program improvement within the Unit.

4.5 Candidate Proficiencies, Professional Dispositions, and Standards

Alignment

In order to reach its mission, vision, and guiding principles, the Unit developed
proficiencies for each objective and dispositions to guide and assess candidate
development. Proficiencies and dispositions operationalize the knowledge bases that
support the program by detailing desired candidate performance. This section presents
the proficiencies related to each Unit objective as well as the professional dispositions
required of candidates. Separate documents provide more detail, including indicators for
each of the dispositions.

Candidate Proficiencies
For candidate preparation to be coherent, comprehensive, and grounded in Unit
objectives, it was critical for the Unit to examine deeply the content of the Conceptual
Framework Working Draft to discern priorities, principles, and essential skills to be
promoted and developed across both programs and among all candidates. The drafting
of objectives and proficiencies occurred iteratively, culminating in a clear guide to

21
candidate performance. Achieving the objectives is necessary for Teaching and Leading
Beyond Boundaries. The proficiencies elucidate where and what the candidate is to do.
They operationalize the objectives as observable and measurable skills.
#1 – Teaching for Learning

Objective: The candidate acts upon academic content, professional and pedagogical
knowledge, and understanding of students to maximize student achievement.

! Proficiency 1-1: The candidate knows subject matter deeply and makes
interrelated connections across disciplines, guiding students to understand
content critically and in-depth.
! Proficiency 1-2: The candidate integrates knowledge of students and their
backgrounds to teach for student success.
! Proficiency 1-3: Through scaffolding student learning, the candidate moves
students increasingly toward complex understandings.
! Proficiency 1-4: To ensure that all students learn well, the candidate employs
various types of presentation and response modes, as well as accommodations
and instructional differentiations.
! Proficiency 1-5: The candidate organizes group learning structures to promote
critical thinking and problem solving while nurturing individual student
participation.

#2 – Analysis, Reflection and Continuous Improvement

Objective: The candidate engages in an ongoing process of reflection, re-planning,

testing, and refining for continuous improvement.

! Proficiency 2-1: The candidate reviews student performance data from multiple
sources, analyzes strengths and weaknesses, and plans for re-teaching or
varying the teaching strategies.
! Proficiency 2-2: The candidate meets with other educators, including mentors,
specialists, and team leaders, as well as parents to enhance understanding of
students.
! Proficiency 2-3: The candidate reviews professional literature, online resources,
and technology tools to expand professional and pedagogical knowledge
relevant to the situation.
! Proficiency 2-4: The candidate creates and implements improvement plans,
procedures, desired learning outcomes, and continues the process of
professional learning through the continuous improvement process.

#3 – Technology Integration and Digital Citizenship

Objective: The candidate demonstrates selection and integration of technology to

deepen and personalize student learning and to prepare students to participate actively
and ethically in a digitally connected world.

22
 ! Proficiency 3-1: The candidate uses a variety of technologies that empower
students to learn effectively within and beyond the boundaries of the face-to-face
classroom.
! Proficiency 3-2: The candidate uses technology to promote student-centered
learning that is both assistive and differentiated to meet individual learning
needs.
! Proficiency 3-3: The candidate promotes students’ cyber safety and their use of
responsible and ethical practices within and beyond the boundaries of the
classroom.

#4 – Creativity, Innovativeness, and Adaptability

Objective: The candidate integrates creativity, innovativeness, and adaptability into the
curriculum, promoting opportunities for discovery, deep learning, and originality.

! Proficiency 4-1: The candidate provides learning environments for students to

explore, experiment, and achieve novel solutions and outcomes.
! Proficiency 4-2: The candidate models and facilitates unique responses, ideas,
designs, and products.

#5 – Local, National, and Global Community

Objective: The candidate integrates into instruction the political, economic, cultural and
ecological concepts of global citizenship.

! Proficiency 5-1: The candidate teaches with a focus on the political, economic,
cultural, and ecological interdependency of the world.
! Proficiency 5-2: Through local, national, and global learning communities, the
candidate engages students in collaborative exchange of diverse perspectives

#6 – Instructional Leadership

Objective: The candidate initiates change and mobilizes the learning community
toward the goal of curriculum and organizational improvement, influencing the practice,
character and culture for learning.

! Proficiency 6-1: The candidate promotes a vision of active, continuous and

engaged learning in the classroom.
! Proficiency 6-2: The candidate advocates for the needs of students with other
school professionals, and for resources needed to help students succeed.
! Proficiency 6-3: The candidate promotes and implements the professional
development of educators to improve student achievement.
! Proficiency 6-4: The candidate engages other educators, parents, and
community members in activities and partnerships that support student learning.

23
Professional Dispositions

Within the Unit’s programs, professional dispositions are expressed through interaction
of candidates within the online environment and in the field, through candidates’
participation in and analyses of curricular instruction, effective communication, and
ongoing reflection and behavioral responses to the professional and local community.

Dispositions include both a way of seeing the world and a particular way of acting within
it. The following definition encompasses the Unit’s understanding of disposition:

Dispositions are habits of mind including both cognitive and affective

attributes that filter one’s knowledge, skills, and beliefs and impact the
action one takes in classroom or professional settings. They are
manifested within relationships as meaning-making occurs with others,
and they are evidenced through interactions in the form of discourse.
(Thornton, 2006, p. 62)

NCATE emphasizes “dispositions” as on par with “knowledge” and “skills” in the first
standard for candidate performance. These “professional attitudes, values, and beliefs
[are] demonstrated through both verbal and nonverbal behaviors as educators interact
with students, families, colleagues, and communities. These positive behaviors support
student learning and development” (NCATE, 2006, p. 89). In concert with professional
research on dispositions, the Unit has developed a set of candidate dispositions that
align with the Teaching and Leading Beyond Boundaries framework. These dispositions
are taught and discussed through the course work and assessed three times throughout
each program to ensure that candidates graduate, prepared to positively affect student
learning. Additionally, MAT candidates are assessed on their professional dispositions
by mentor teachers and university supervisors - both at the mid-point and at the end of
the internship.

The dispositions were created with attention to diversity and technology and are aligned
with the expectations in professional, state, and institutional standards. A separate
document details indicators for each disposition, which ground the dispositions in
concrete, authentic educational practice within each of three categories.

Category #1: Relationship with Students through the Curriculum and Instruction
! Demonstrates teaching to enable all students to learn at high levels
! Displays respect for diversity as an essential curricular component
! Demonstrates that important academic learning can be promoted through group
work
! Demonstrates the ability to respond to individual differences in learning
! Demonstrates the importance of adaptability and innovativeness

Category #2: Relationship with Students, Parents, and Other Stakeholders

through Effective Communication
! Displays caring and trust-worthiness

24
 ! Communicates professionally, respectfully, and effectively

Category #3: Relationship with the University Community, the School Community
and the Profession
! Contributes to the broad school community, including online professional
networks
! Demonstrates professional responsibility
! Demonstrates professional growth

Standards, Proficiencies, and Professional Dispositions Alignment

An alignment matrix displaying the alignment among the six Unit objectives, three
dispositions categories, and national, state and university standards that guide the work
of the Unit appear below (Table 2). Within the matrix, the following abbreviations are
used:

InTASC – Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Principles

NBPTS - National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Five Core Propositions

ISTE - International Society of Technology Education Technology Coach Program

Standards (Draft, 2011)

Learning Forward (NSDC) – Standards foro Professional Learning

MTTS – Maryland Teacher Technology Standards

MD Redesign – Maryland Redesign of Teacher Education

SLEs – Student Learning Expectations

NCATE Unit Standards are infused across all Unit objectives.

25
Table 2: Alignment of Standards with Unit Objectives and Professional Disposition Categories
National State University
Partnership
Unit Objectives Learning
for 21st MD
InTASC ISTE NBPTS Forward MTTS SLEs
Century Redesign
(NSDC)
Skills
1. Learner 2. Teaching, Propositions Core Subjects Evaluation, 6. Assistive Strong Content
Development Learning, and 1-3 and 21st Learning, Technologies Academic Knowledge
2. Learning Assessments Century Equity Background,
Teaching for Differences 3. Digital Age Themes, Extensive
Learning 4. Content Learning Standards and Internship,
Knowledge Environments Assessments, Linkage with
Curriculum and preK-12
Instruction Priorities
6. Assessment 6. Continuous Proposition 4 Professional Data-Driven, 4. Assessment for Performance Information
7. Planning for Learning and Development Design, Administration Assessment Literacy
Analysis, Instruction Professional Research- and Instruction
Reflection, and 9. Reflection & Growth Based 7. Professional
Continuous Continuous 4. Professional Growth
Improvement Growth Development &
Program
Evaluation
8. Instructional 3. Digital-Age Information, Resources 1. Technology Linkage with Technology
Strategies Learning Media, and Information preK-12 Fluency
Environments Technology Access, Priorities
Technology 1.Visionary Skills Evaluation,
Integration and Leadership Processing and
Digital Application
Citizenship 5. Integrating
Technology into
the Curriculum
and Instruction
Creativity, 5. Innovative 2. Teaching, Learning and Quality 3. Legal, Social Strong Critical
Applications of Learning, and Innovation Teaching and Ethical Academic Thinking
Innovativeness, Content Assessments Skills Issues Background
and Adaptability Solving
3. Learning 5 . Digital Proposition 5 Learning Learning 2. Communication Extensive Written
Local, National, Environments Citizenship & Environments Communities Internship Communicatio
Responsibility , n
and Global Collaboration
Community , Family
Involvement

26
 10. 1. Visionary Proposition 5 Life and Career Leadership
Instructional Collaboration Leadership Skills
Leadership 4. PD &
Program Eval.
National State University
Professional Partnership
Disposition Learning
for 21st MD
Categories InTASC ISTE NBPTS Forward MTTS SLEs
Century Redesign
(NSDC)
Skills
Relationship 1. Learner 2. Teaching, Proposition Learning Extensive
with Students Development Learning, and 1, 2, and 3. Environments Internship
2. Learning Assessment
through the Differences 3. Digital-Age
Curriculum and 3. Learning Learning
Instruction Environments Environments

Relationship 10. Leadership 1. Visionary Proposition 5 Learning and Leadership 2. Extensive Written
with Students, and Leadership Innovation Communication Internship Communicatio
Parents, and Collaboration 4. Digital Skills n
other Citizenship &
Responsibility
Stakeholders
through
Effective
Communication
10. Leadership 6. Content Proposition 5 Professional Learning 7. Professional Extensive
Relationship and Learning and Development Communities Growth Internship
with the Collaboration Professional
University Growth
Community, the 4.
School Professional
Community and Development &
the Profession Program
Evaluation

27
4.6 Summary of Unit’s Assessment System

The Unit’s Assessment System emerges from its Conceptual Framework. The unit is
solidly grounded in a number of processes that provide feedback from many sources
and assist in continual reflection and improvement. The assessment process collectively
focuses on candidate learning and provides a formal process for engaging in a
continuous process of improvement in the areas of teaching, program design and
assessment techniques. This feedback loop informs administration of unit needs for
refinement of assignments, rubrics, instructor and student support and training,
candidate performance and unit operations.

4.6.1 Transition Points

Program transition points exist to ensure candidate progress and meet candidate needs
in a timely manner. Transition points enable analysis of program progression and
enable graduation projection and determinations of eligibility. In order for candidates to
pass through transition points, they must meet the following criteria.

Summary of MAT Transition Points

See Table #3 for full MAT Key Assessment descriptions

MAT program entry:

1. Apply to the Graduate School and provide at least a bachelor’s degree transcript
from a regionally accredited college or university.
2. Key Assessment #2 – Transcript Analysis: Complete a major in the content area for
which certification will be sought and provide evidence of a 2.75 in the major.
Alternatively, and subject to Unit approval, candidates must complete 30 credits in
content-related courses and earn a 2.75 GPA in these courses.
3. Earn Maryland-specified Maryland qualifying scores on the Praxis I, ACT, GRE, or
SAT exams following Maryland basic skills comparability options, as provided by the
Unit or the Maryland State Department of Education.
4. Be admitted to the Graduate School and to the MAT program. (Note: an applicant
may take the first course if only one content background course is needed for full
admission, but may only move forward to the second course when this course
requirement is met.)

MAT entry to internship:

1. Complete the first 24 credits in the program with a 3.0 GPA or higher.
2. Complete and pass the appropriate content assessment:
• Key Assessment # 1 – Appropriate Praxis II content assessment; or ETS
Major Field Test in Computer Science; or for foreign language candidates,
ACTFL OPI and WPT
• Key Assessment #7 (foreign language candidates only) - To-be-determined

28
 content assessment.
3. Performance of at least 80% on the following key assessments:
• Key Assessment # 3 – EDTP 635 & EDTP 639 Lesson Planning.

MAT eligibility for graduation:

1. Meet all course requirements including 16-week internship requirements.
2. Provide evidence of having registered for or taken the Praxis II Pedagogy
assessment.
3. Earn an average GPA of 3.0 or higher in all MAT coursework.
4. Performance of at least 80% on the following key assessments:
• Key Assessment # 4 – EDTP 650 Internship (Mentor and University Supervisor
Evaluations)
• Key Assessment # 5 – EDTP 650 Action Research Project
• Key Assessment # 6 – EDTP 650 Internship for Science candidates: Specific
safety assessment on mentor and university supervisor evaluations
• Key Assessment # 8 – EDTP 650 Teaching and Leading Beyond Boundaries
Reflection

Summary of MEd Transition Points

See Table #4 for full MEd Key Assessment descriptions
MEd program entry:
1. Apply to the Graduate School and provide at least a bachelor’s degree transcript
from a regionally accredited college or university.
2. Be admitted into the Graduate School.
MEd preparation to proceed:
1. Performance of at least 80% on the following key assessment:
• Key Assessment #1 – Course Grade in First Course, EDTC 600: Foundations of
Technology in Teaching and Learning.

MEd entry to the capstone course:

1. Candidates complete the first 27 credits in the MEd program with a GPA of 3.0 or
higher.
2. Performance of at least 80% on the following key assessments:
• Key Assessment # 3 – EDTC 645 Global Classroom Module
• Key Assessment # 4 – EDTC 640 Professional Development Project
• Key Assessment # 6 – EDTC 630 Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) and Digital
Citizenship Project
• Key Assessment #7 – EDTC 615 Data-Based Decision-Making Project, Part III
• Key Assessment #8 - EDTC 630 School Technology Plan

MEd eligibility for graduation:

1. Meet all MEd program requirements with a GPA of 3.0 or higher.
2. Performance of at least 80% on the following key assessments:

29
 • Key Assessment # 2 – EDTC 670 Teaching and Leading Beyond Boundaries
Project
•
•
Key Assessment # 5 – EDTC 670 Integrative Capstone Project

4.6.2 Key Assessments

See Table 3 & 4 for MAT and MEd key assessment descriptions.

Candidates’ performance is continually evaluated in courses through assignments and

key assessments. Conceptual Framework objectives have been carefully aligned with
National (including SPA: ISTE and IL/PB), State, and University standards, and key
assessments allow the unit to track candidate progress toward meeting these
objectives. The table below outlines each key assessment with its NCATE assessment
type as well as its associated objectives.

30
Table 3: Summary of MAT Key Assessments and Conceptual Framework
Alignment
MAT Key Assessments
Assessment Type Key Assessments & Key Assessment Description
Related Conceptual
Framework
Objectives
Assessment #1: State Pre-internship: Candidates are required to take and pass approved,
Licensure assessment Appropriate Praxis II designated content exams prior to beginning their
or other content- content assessment; or internship. Additionally for world languages teachers:
based assessment ETS Major Field Test in a language content assessment to be determined to
Computer Science; or meet the IL/PB SPA recognition with conditions."
for foreign language
candidates, ACTFL
OPI, and WPT, and to-
be-determined content
assessment (as
required in UMUC's
SPA recognition with
conditions) – the
program has not had a
foreign language
candidate graduate
yet.
(CF # 1,2)
Assessment #2: On entry/admission: Complete a major in the content area for which
Description of Transcript Analysis certification will be sought and provide evidence of a
Transcript Analysis Process 2.75 GPA in the major. Alternatively, and subject to
Process Course Grade in Unit approval, candidates must complete 30 credits in
Content Area content-related courses and earn a 2.75 GPA in these
(CF # 1,2) courses.
Assessment #3: EDTP 635 and EDTP Candidates must successfully demonstrate how to
Candidate’s ability to 639 Lesson Planning prepare lesson plans that emphasize content
plan (CF # 1,2,3,4) knowledge, assessment, diversity, technology use,
and knowing ones’ students through acceptable
grades.
Assessment #4: Mentor and University Candidates must demonstrate proficiencies in content
Student Teaching or Supervisor evaluations: knowledge, skills, pedagogy and dispositions.
Internship EDTP 650 Internship
(CF # 1,2,3,4,5,6)
Assessment #5: EDTP 650 Action In order to demonstrate candidate impact on student
Candidate impact on Research Project learning, candidates complete and present an action
student learning (CF # 1,2,5,6) research project, which includes supporting data and
increases understanding of content teaching and
learning.
Assessment #6: Mentor and University Candidates are required to demonstrate safety
Required SPA Supervisor evaluations: procedures using science equipment through their
assessment EDTP 650 Internship instruction with students.
Safety-assessment (Specific science safety
(program includes assessment on
science) mentor/university
supervisor evaluations)
(CF # 1,2,6)

31
 Assessment #7: ACTFL OPI and WPT Foreign language candidates are required to take and
Required SPA exams (SPA pass approved, designated language proficiency
assessment language requirement) exams prior to beginning their internship.
proficiency
(program includes (CF # 1,2,3,5,6)
foreign languages)

Assessment #8: EDTP 650 Teaching Candidates are required to demonstrate, through
Required SPA and Leading Beyond reflection, their content knowledge, skills, pedagogy,
assessment Boundaries Reflection and dispositions.
Additional assessment
that addresses IL/PB (CF # 1,2,3,4,5,6)
standards

Table 4: Summary of MEd Key Assessments and Conceptual Framework

Alignment

MEd Key Assessments

Assessment Type Key Assessments & Key Assessment Descriptions
Related Conceptual
Framework
Objectives
Assessment #1: State Course Grade in EDTC Grade reflects candidates’ performance in meeting
licensure exam or 600: Foundations of NETS*T. Course and assignments are specifically
content knowledge Technology in constructed for students to demonstrate mastery of these
assessment Teaching and Learning standards.
(CF# 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Assessment #2: EDTC 670 Teaching Candidates construct (with evidence and analysis) a
Content knowledge and Leading Beyond convincing portrait of meeting ISTE’s Technology Coach
assessment Boundaries Project Standards and the proficiencies and dispositions identified
(CF# 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6) in the Department’s Conceptual Framework.
Assessment #3: EDTC 645 Global Candidates apply skills in lesson/unit planning learned
Candidate’s ability to Classroom Module throughout the program to a global context, and develop
plan (CF# 1, 3, 4, & 5) an effective unit of instruction that meets content,
technology, and global standards (including planning
student collaboration across countries).
Assessment #4: Field EDTC 640 Candidates design, implement, and evaluate a
or Clinical Professional professional development Workshop and Wiki support site
Assessment Development Project for teachers that helps teachers integrate technology to
(CF#: 1, 2, 3, 4, & 6) improve student learning. They also provide a plan for
sustaining professional learning throughout the school
year.
Assessment #5: EDTC 670 Integrative In order to demonstrate candidate impact on student
Candidate impact on Capstone Project learning, candidates complete and present an action
student learning (CF# 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6) research project with students and/or other teachers which
includes supporting data and reflects deep understanding
of integrating technology to maximize student learning of
content and skills.

Assessment #6: EDTC 630 Acceptable Candidates develop presentation re strategies for teachers
SPA Assessment Use Policy and Digital to protect students and teachers and proactively promote

32
 MEd Key Assessments
(MEd Choice: Social, Citizenship Project digital citizenship; they also make recommendations for
Legal and Ethical strengthening school/district AUP.
Issues) (CF# 3, 5, 6)
Assessment #7: SPA EDTC 615 Data-Driven Phase I & II involve interpreting student data individually
Assessment Decision Making and in grade-level teams respectively. In Phase III,
(MEd Choice: Project, Phase III candidates demonstrate ability to expand upon one group
Assessment and Data (CF: 1, 2, 3, 4, & 6) decision re intervention strategies and reflect on data-
Analysis) based teamwork and individual leadership.
Assessment #8: SPA EDTC 630: School Candidates develop a school technology plan, including a
Assessment Technology Plan vision and needs assessment, goals and objectives,
(MEd Choice: (CF: 1, 2, 3, 6) rationale, budget, implementation plan, and evaluation.
Technology Planning)

4.6.3 Process for Assuring Assessments are Fair, Accurate, Consistent,

and Free from Bias

The Unit’s assessments are carefully aligned with National, State and University
standards, as well as the Unit’s Conceptual Framework objectives and proficiencies.
Candidates are made aware of this alignment through curriculum mapping offered in
course syllabi as well as course discussions on the Conceptual Framework’s vision,
goals and objectives. Information about dispositions, transition points, key assessments
and rubrics are made available to all candidates so that they are aware of program and
course expectations.

Since continuous improvement is the culture of the Unit, each semester program
directors review and analyze course and student data for levels of performance and
consistency. Student performances across multiple course sections are examined for
trends and patterns, reflecting on students’ skill development, as well as on faculty
scoring of their performance. Faculty feedback is examined for consistency in
expectations and rubric use.

Following the semester-end analysis, program directors initiate and facilitate faculty
discussions and training on alignment of assignment expectations to rubric criteria and
use, as needed. As a result of this process student orientations may be initiated, or
collaborative refinement of rubrics may follow. The Unit pilots new assessments and
rubrics with the intent to validate processes and associate consistency of rubric
understanding and use (Stiggins, 2000).

The continuous improvement cycle incorporates a thorough effort by administrators to

“assess the assessment” which includes reviewing the approach and methods of all
assessment activities (UMUC, 2010, p. 6). In addition, through the Unit Advisory
Council, revisions and refinements of program and unit improvements are examined by
multiple internal and external stakeholders representing multiple points of view. This
process provides the foundation for a system that is accurate, consistent, fair, and free

33
from bias.

4.6.4 System for Handling Candidates Who Have Not Met Unit
Expectations

Candidate progress through their program is carefully tracked through transition points
and performance on key assessments so that supports may be provided to meet needs.
Support for candidates is available at the university, unit, and program levels.

At UMUC, all students, candidates in education, are continually supported through a

360 learning management support system, library support, career services, job search
resources, tutoring, writing help, academic clubs and honor societies. Graduate
students must also take UCPS 615 Orientation to Graduate Studies at UMUC during the
first 6 credits of study. This course includes a tool called Assessment in Writing and
(AWE) to evaluate writing skill. After completing the assessment, students are given the
opportunity to work on writing skill development through a supportive writing
improvement course provided by the graduate school.

Since assessment is such an integrated part of the Unit’s programs, candidates are
given the opportunity to interact with the Unit’s Director of Assessment. Through live
conferencing sessions, personal phone calls, and online tutorial videos, candidates
learn about how to use the Unit’s assessment management system (TK20), gain
understanding of why an assessment system is necessary, and receive continual
software support.

Both the MAT and MEd programs offer supports to candidates as they progress through
the program. The Unit’s academic data system has a tracking mechanism that alerts
administration to send candidates reminders about program progression, internship
admission processes, and graduation requirements. If candidates’ GPA drops below a
3.0, they are contacted by a graduate advisor who provides information and support
during their probation period and beyond. Unit staff, i.e., an Academic Coordinator and
the MAT Assistant Director of Student Support and Success, monitor other types of
transition point performance, and then coordinate between the program directors and
candidates as needed to help candidates get back on track. If candidates have
professional disposition problems, their improvement plan is developed with them and
monitored carefully.

The MAT program offers a Mentoring Program, providing candidate support from a
master secondary level educator in the curriculum area of science, technology,
engineering and math areas (STEM) and the humanities. Mentors guide, support and
encourage new professionals to have confidence, focus, and passion, and to have an
excellent start on their career path.

Further, the Unit has personnel devoted to answering new and current candidate
questions. The MAT program has a full-time staff member, the Assistant Director for
Student Support and Success, who provides hands-on support for individual students
as they progress through the program. In the MEd, student needs are primarily handled

34
 by the program director and one of the Unit’s Academic Coordinators. Graduate
advisors in the Office of Enrollment Management’s Recruitment and Retention unit
provide advising and student support to all graduate students.

Within both programs, course instructors, university supervisors, and mentor teachers
are trained in the professional dispositions to support candidates’ professional
development. Occasionally they might find the need to interact privately with a
candidate to address a professional disposition issue. This informal approach is the first
step (and most often the only step) in ensuring that candidate performance is consistent
with the Unit’s professional dispositions. More formal responses to promoting candidate
improvement of professional dispositions are outlined in the Unit’s Stages of
Intervention and include assessments of dispositions, meetings, and the development of
improvement plans. If deemed necessary, a candidate for initial licensure may be
removed from the program for failure to develop required dispositions.

4.6.5 Plan for Evaluating Unit Operations

Currently, the Unit is comprised of two professional education programs, the MAT and
the MEd in Instructional Technology. Unit operations are guided and evaluated by the
Chair of the Department, who coordinates evidence-based continuous improvement
systems across both of these programs, as well as the support structures needed for
their effectiveness. The MAT Program Director and Director of Field and Clinical
Experiences, and the Program Director of the MEd of Instructional Technology have
direct responsibility for effective program delivery. These directors report to, and are
evaluated by the Chair, who reports to the Dean of The Graduate School.

Table 5: Unit Operations Annual Evaluation Schedule

Unit Operations Annual Evaluation Schedule -Chaired by Unit Head

Assessment Method When? What?

Advisory Board Meetings Fall, pref. October Unit presentation of updates since last meeting, with
Spring, pref. April feedback and additional recommendations; attention to
K-12 school needs and developments with school
partnerships.

UMUC-required full-time May every year Using university format based upon faculty/staff
faculty and staff performance position types, and position duties. Example
appraisal system components: learning outcome assessment, program
review/refinement, candidate field placements,
candidate retention data, program management and
staffing, responsiveness to UMUC core values.

35
Weekly assessment meetings Every Tuesday (unless Chair (unit head), assessment director, program
announced directors, and director of field and clinical assessment
cancellation) meet to plan, monitor, and examine data associated
with the unit’s assessment system, and to manage
progress toward meeting other accountability
requirements, including State and NCATE.

Program continuous After each semester Program directors meet with Chair (unit head) for
improvement cycle (Fall, Summer, Spring) updating the program improvement plan for the next
semester. Chair and director come to agreement;
Chair approves.

Evidence includes: adjunct faculty performance,

student evaluations, key assessment data, instructor
feedback, and other evidence, e.g. SPA feedback, for
planning program improvements.

The Unit’s Advisory Board plays an important role in the evaluation of Unit Operations.
Under the Chair’s leadership, the Unit meets twice annually, during spring and fall
semesters with its Teacher Education Advisory Board. This Board is comprised of
representatives from local public school districts, professional organizations, faculty,
alumni, and alumni employers. On each meeting’s agenda, Program Directors report
on program performance updates since the previous meeting, including K-12 school
partnership updates with discussions on school needs. Through these regular
meetings, the Advisory Board, not only receives updates, but also provides continuing
feedback and guidance on school initiatives and partnerships, program improvements,
evaluation processes and current student performance data. Typically, the Board asks
important questions and seeks additional data, which help move the Unit’s work forward
in its shared agenda.

For effective Unit operations functioning in an ongoing continuous improvement cycle,

the Chair supervises the Program Directors, and the Directors of Assessment and of
Field and Clinical Experiences, as well as the two Academic Coordinators. Evaluation
of personnel performance, based on their position duties, follows UMUC’s annual
performance appraisal and development cycle, and includes regular supervisory
support and feedback. Examples of Unit operations evaluated through this process
include the following: learning outcome assessment (as implemented according the
Unit’s assessment system), ongoing program review and refinement, supervision and
development of faculty, assurance of academic outcomes (following UMUC policies),
candidate placement and management of field and clinical experiences, initiatives
associated with student retention, responsiveness to UMUC’s core values, program
management and staffing, and textbook adoption and coordination.

As indicated, this UMUC-required performance appraisal system is part of the Unit’s

evaluation context. Through this listing of many of the Unit operations being evaluated,
it is clear that two aspects of the Unit are notable in the regular operations of the Unit:
first, the leadership and delivery of the two programs; and, second, the support of the
two programs through such essential functions as course staffing and textbook

36
coordination. Again, the Chair is responsible for evaluation of Unit operations at these
two essential functional levels, and the Program Directors, who report to the Chair, are
responsible for program operations.

Regarding data support within the Unit, the Director of Assessment, who also reports to
the Chair, conducts weekly assessment meetings with the Unit’s leadership team. This
team includes the MAT Program Director, the MAT Director of Field and Clinical
Experiences, the MEd in Instructional Technology Program Director, and the Chair.

Key to program excellence is the Unit’s system of strategic ongoing continuous

improvement, conducted by the Chair and supported by the Director of Assessment.
Approximately three weeks following the end of a semester (each of three 12-week
semesters), Program Directors meet individually with the Chair for presentation,
discussion, and approval of their Continuous Improvement Plan. This evidence-based
approach considers multiple data sources, as well as program and Unit priorities. Data
sources include candidate course and faculty evaluation data, Program Director
observations of faculty, student performance on key assessments, Advisory Board
input, faculty recommendations, faculty use of grading rubrics, employer feedback,
candidate recommendations, etc. Following any agreed upon revision of the plan, the
Program Director submits the finalized document to the Chair and to the Director of
Assessment. This Continuous Improvement Plan, owned by Program Directors but
required and maintained at the Unit level, is an important – and agreed upon – blueprint
for the next semester and often beyond. Importantly, this cycle concludes at the end of
the spring semester with a priorities plan for the whole next year.

4.6.6 Summary of Candidate Performance on Assessments at Admission

Candidates must meet certain requirements to be admitted into the Unit’s programs.
They are also required to meet performance expectations to continue in the program
and graduate. MAT program entry expectations and performance data are provided in
Tables 6, 7, and 8. The MEd program admission expectations and performance data
are provided in Tables 9 and 10.

Table 6: Summary of MAT Program Entry Requirements

37
Table 7: Summary of MAT Program Entry Performance for Fall 2012, Spring 2013, Summer 2013

Term of Applications Met MAT Unme Unme Unmet Admitte Denied Withdrew
Applications Received Summary
Requireme of MAT
t GPA Performance
t Test Coursewor d applicatio
nts Score k n
Performance Requirements
Fall 2012 73 32 8 7 29 27 33 5
MAT Program Entry 1. Apply to the Graduate School and provide at least a
Spring 2013 73 33 bachelor’s
6 degree
1 transcript
32 from a regionally
32 39
accredited 2
college or university.
Summer 48 15 6 2 25 13 33 2
2013
2. Complete a major in the content area for which certification
will be sought and provide evidence of a 2.75 GPA in the
major.
3. Alternatively, and subject to UMUC approval, candidates must
complete 30 credits in content-related courses and earn a
2.75 GPA in these courses.
4. Earn Maryland-specified qualifying scores on the Praxis I,
ACT, GRE, or SAT exams.
5. Be admitted to the Graduate School and to the MAT program.
(Note: an applicant may take the first course if only one
content background course is needed for full admission, but
may only move forward to the second course when this
course requirement is met.

Table 8: Summary of MAT Program Entry Performance for Fall 2012, Spring 2013, Summer 2013 by
Content Area

38
 Fall 2012: # Met MAT Unmet Unmet Unmet Admitted Denied Withdrew
Applicants Requirements GPA Test Coursework
MAT Applicants Score Application

Certification Area

Biology 4 3 1 0 0 3 1 0

Computer Science 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

Earth/Space Science 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

English 23 15 2 1 5 14 8 1

History 9 3 0 2 4 3 5 1

Mathematics 10 3 1 1 5 2 7 1

Physics 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

Russian 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

Social Studies 23 7 4 3 9 5 16 0

Spanish 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0

Total 76 32 8 7 29 27 33 5

39
 Spring 2013: # Met MAT Unmet Unmet Unmet Admitted Denied Withdrew
MAT Applicants Applicants Requirements GPA Test Coursework
Score Application
Certification Area

Biology 6 5 0 0 1 4 1 1

Chemistry 3 2 0 0 1 2 1 0

Computer Science 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Earth/Space Science 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0

English 21 14 2 0 5 14 7 0

French 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

History 5 1 0 0 4 1 4 0

Mathematics 14 5 2 0 7 5 9 0

Physics 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Social Studies 17 4 1 1 11 4 13 0

Total: 73 33 6 1 32 32 39 2

Summer 2013: # Met MAT Unmet Unmet Unmet Admitted Denied Withdrew
MAT Applicants Applicants Requirements GPA Test Coursework
Score Application
Certification Area

Biology 5 3 0 0 2 3 2 0

Chemistry 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

Earth/Space Science 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1

English 15 5 3 1 6 4 10 1

French 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

History 4 0 0 1 3 0 4 0

Mathematics 4 0 0 0 4 0 4 0

Physics 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

Social Studies 14 4 3 0 7 4 10 0

Spanish 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Total: 48 15 6 2 25 13 33 2

MEd Summary of Candidate Admission and “Proceed in Program” Requirements

40
Candidates must meet certain requirements to be admitted into the Unit’s programs.
They are also required to meet performance expectations to continue in the program
and graduate. The MEd program entry expectations and performance data are provided
in Tables 9 and 10.

The MEd, like most graduate programs at UMUC, is ‘open-enrollment,’ meaning that
student admission is based upon completion of their application and the submission of
an undergraduate degree from a regionally accredited college or university. For
example, there is no minimal GPA as an admission requirement. However, candidates
must receive 3.0 in the first course (EDTC 600), or earn a 3.0 GPA in the semester
during which the first course is taken in order to proceed in the program. The reason for
providing the “Proceed in Program” data is because completion of first course
expectations is required by ISTE standards.

Table 9: Summary of MEd Program Entry and “Proceed in Program” Requirements

Summary of MEd Performance

Performance Requirements

MEd Program Entry 1. Apply to the Graduate School and provide at least a
bachelor’s degree transcript from a regionally accredited
college or university.
2. Be admitted into the Graduate School.

MEd Proceed in
Program Key Assessment #1— Course Grade in first course, EDTC
600 (to demonstrate baseline content knowledge to proceed
to more advanced coursework):

Candidates complete all EDTC 600 assignments, as

evidence of proficiency in NETS*T (ISTE, 2007). This
course also provides baseline data on students’
dispositions.

Table 10: Summary of MEd Program Admission Performance and First Course
Performance for Summer 2012, Fall 2012, and Spring 2013.

Term of Application Met MEd Enrolled in Complete % Completed Average

Applications Received Requirement 1st course d 1st First Course & GPA of
s Course* Met Standards Course

41
 (received Completers
A or B)* (4-point
scale)

Summer 2012 60 60 23 15 93% 3.50

Fall 2012 135 135 84 59 95% 3.61

Spring 2013 78 78 60 46 96% 3.39

*Course completers are defined as those who received a grade for the course (did not withdraw at any point)
and did not receive an FN, Failure for Non-Attendance.

4.6.7 Summary of Candidate Performance on Assessments at Exit

Candidates must meet certain requirements to be admitted into the Unit’s programs.
They are also required to meet performance expectations to continue in the program
and graduate. MAT program entry and exiting expectations and performance data are
provided in Tables 11 and 12. The MEd program’s exiting performance expectations
and data are provided in Tables 13 and 14.

Table 11: Summary of MAT Program Exit Requirements

Summary of MAT Performance at Exit

Performance Requirements

MAT eligibility for 1. Meet all requirements of 16-week internship.

graduation 2. Meet all content testing requirements (Maryland qualifying scores
on Praxis II or ACTFL OPI and WPT); provide official evidence of
taking or registering for Praxis II pedagogy.
3. Earn a GPA of 3.0 or higher.

Table 12: Summary of MAT Program Exit Performance for Summer 2012, Fall 2012,
Spring 2013

42
 Graduation Term # students who graduated Average GPA of graduating
students

Summer 2012 2 3.57

Fall 2012 16 3.64

Spring 2013 20 3.76

MEd Performance Summary at Exit

Candidates must meet certain requirements to be admitted into the Unit’s programs.
They are also required to meet performance expectations to continue in the program
and graduate. The MEd program’s exiting performance expectations and data are
provided in Tables 13 and 14.

Table 13: Summary of MEd Program Exit Requirements

Summary of MEd Performance

Performance Requirements

MEd eligibility for 1. Meet all MEd course requirements.

graduation 2. Earn a GPA of 3.0 or higher.

Table 14: Summary of MEd Program Exit Performance Data for Summer 2012, Fall 2012,
Spring 2013

Graduation Term # students who graduated Average GPA of graduating

students

Summer 2012 7 3.78

Fall 2012 23 3.80

Spring 2013 23 3.67

43
Other Exit Performance Comments on MAT and MEd Candidates

In the final semester before graduation, MAT and MEd candidates are asked to reflect
on the theme of Teaching and Leading Beyond Boundaries. In their reflective essays
and multimedia presentations, candidates describe what they have learned in relation to
the six objectives of the Conceptual Framework and articulate the specific boundaries
that they will be able to overcome given the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that
were developed through their program of study. These projects are perhaps the best
evidence of the Unit’s Conceptual Framework in action, confirming the commitment and
creativity of the candidates. As one candidate, Dianne Diehl, writes, “I am but one
individual, but I’m convinced that I can make a difference in the lives of my students,
one classroom at a time.”

By preparing candidates to teach and lead beyond boundaries, the Unit works to
achieve the vision of a global learning community of educators, where barriers of time,
place, perception of individual limitation, and the tendency to maintain the status quo
are overcome, and where all students engage in highly effective educational
experiences.

44
References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and

National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for
educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon (Pearson Education Group).
Anderson, S., Sabatelli, R., & Kosutic, I. (2007). Families, urban neighborhood youth
centers, and peers as contexts for development. Family Relations, 56(4), 346-
357. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00464.x.

Banks, J.A. (2001). Citizenship education and diversity: Implications for teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52 (1), 5-16.

Barkand, J. & Kush, J. (2009). GEARS a 3D virtual learning environment and virtual
social and educational world used in online secondary schools. Electronic
Journal of e-Learning, 7(3), 215-224. Retrieved from
http://www.ejel.org/volume7/issue3

Beghetto, R. A. (2005). Does Assessment Kill Student Creativity? The Educational

Forum,69, 254–263.

Berry, B., Daughtrey, A. & Wieder, A. (2010). Teacher leadership: Leading the way to
effective teaching and learning. The Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved from
http://www.teachingquality.org

Biegel, S. & Kuehl, S.J. (2010). Safe at school: Addressing the school environment and
LGBT safety through policy and legislation. National Education Policy Center.
Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/

Boudett, K, City, E. & Murname, R. (2006). Data Wise. MA: Harvard Education Press.

Bowen, S., & Rude, H. (2006). Assessment and students with disabilities: Issues and
challenges with educational reform. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(3), 24-
30. Retrieved from
http://www.encyclopedia.com/Rural+Special+Education+Quarterly/publications.a
spx?date=200607&pageNumber=1

Bradley-Levine, J., Smity, J. & Carr, K. (2009). The role of action research in
empowering teachers to change their practice. Journal of Ethnographic &
Qualitative Research, 3(3), 152-161. Retrieved from

45
 http://www.cedarville.edu/event/eqrc/journal/journal.htm

Brookhart, S. (2010). Chapter 6: Assessing creativity and creative thinking. How to assess
higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Brown, J.S. & Adler, R.P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and
learning 2.0. Educase Review, 43 (1), 16-32. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/eq

Cennamo, K., Ross, J., & Ertmer, P. (2010). Creativity. Technology integration for
meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. Belmont, CA: Wadworth,
Cengage Learning.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010, August 8.) News Brief: CCSSO Responds
to “The Creativity Crisis”. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsso.org/News_and_Events/Current_News/CCSSO_Response_to_t
he_Creativity_Crisis.html

Council of Chief State School Officers & National Governors Association. (2010).
Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers & National Governors Association. (2010).
Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.

Danielson, C. (2009). Implementing the framework for teaching in enhancing

professional practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Duffy, P. (2008). Engaging the YouTube google-eyed generation: Strategies for using
web
2.0 in teaching and learning. Electronic Journal e-Learning, 6(2), 119 – 130.
Retrieved from http://www.ejel.org/main.html

Elgort, I., Smith, A. G. & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course
work? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 195-210.
Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet.html

Ferrari, A., Cachia, R. & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and creativity in education and
training in the EU member states: Fostering creative learning and supporting
innovative teaching. Retrieved from
http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2700

Friedman, A. & Wallace, E.K. (2006). Crossing borders: Developing an innovative

collaboration to improve the preparation of high school English teachers. Equity
& Excellence in Education, 39(1), 15-26. Retrieved from
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?
target=contribution&id=J3N5734L7H24T041

46
Gahran, A. (2010 June 23). Connection age: Transcending the information age.
Retrieved from www.contentions.com

Garret, G., Mandernach, B. J., Gonzales, R. M., & Garrett, A. L. (2006). An examination
of online instructor presence via threaded discussion participation. MERLOT
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2 (4). Retrieved from
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol2no4/mandernach.htm

Gerzon, M. (2010). Global citizens. London: Rider Books.

Grassi, E. A. & Barker, H. B. (2010). Culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional

students. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Gunderson, S., Jones, R., and Scanland, K. (2005). The jobs revolution: Changing how
America works, (2nd ed). Chicago, IL: Copywriters Incorporated.
Gutierrez, C. & Bryan, C. (2010). Online community becomes a pathway to teacher
leadership. Journal of Staff Development, 31(1), 42-47. Retrieved from
www.nsdc.org
Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S.S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J.A. & Wayman,
J.C. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision
making. IES practice guide. NCEE 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov.ezproxy.umuc.edu/PDFS/ED506645.pdf
Hebert, T. (2010). Crafting moments of inspiration in the classroom. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 46(4), 148-151. Retrieved from http://www.kdp.org/publications/

Herner-Patnode, L., & Hea-Jin, L. (2009). A capstone experience for preservice

teachers: Building a web-based portfolio. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 12(2), 101-110. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/

Hulpia, H. & Devos, G. (2009). How distributed leadership can make a difference in
teachers’ organizational commitment? A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26(3), 565-575. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.08.006
International Society for Technology in Education (2007). National educational
technology standards for students, 2nd ed. Retrieved from
http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/For_Students/NETS_S.htm

International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National educational

technology standards for teachers, 2nd Edition. Retrieved from
http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/NETS_for_Teac
hers.htm

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium [INTASC]. (2011). Model
core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council

47
 of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2011/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standar
ds_2011.pdf

Jackson, J. (2009). Game-based teaching: What educators can learn from video
games. Teaching Education, 20 (3), 291-304. Retrieved from
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/10476210.html

Jenkins, H.; with Clinto, K.; Purushotma, R.; Robison, A. & Weigel, M. (2006).
Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st
century. Retrieved from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-
A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF

Khalsa, D. K. (2005). Support for global college-based learning: U.S. teacher

motivation, online training, virtual teamwork, trust and identity. Doctoral
Dissertation. Language, Literacy and Culture Program, University of Maryland
Baltimore County.

Khalsa, D. K. & Woodward, K. (2010, April 1). Challenge of preparing globally-skilled

teachers: A technology-based teacher education model. Presented at the annual
meeting of SITE, San Diego, CA.

Learning Forward (2011). Standards for professional learning. Retrieved from

http://www.learningforward.org/standards/standards.cfm

Longview Foundation. (2008). Teacher preparation for the global age: The imperative
for change. Retrieved from http://www.longviewfdn.org/122/teacher-preparation-
for-the-global-age.html

Longview Foundation & Asia Society (2010). State strategies to prepare globally
competent students. Retrieved from http://asiasociety.org/files/statesrubric.pdf

Maki, P. (2004). Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the
institution. Stylus: Sterling: VA.

Mansilla, V.B. and Jackson, A. (2011). Educating for global competence: Preparing our
youth to engage the world. New York, NY: Asia Society. Retrieved from
http://asiasociety.org/files/book-globalcompetence.pdf

Maryland Higher Education Commission. (1995). Teacher education task force report.
Retrieved from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/2C7FFCC4-
3F21-4B62-9406-311B06CDF2DB/1496/Redesign_Teacher_Ed.pdf

Maryland Higher Education Commission. (2009). Maryland State Plan for

Postsecondary Education. Annapolis, MD: Author.

Maryland State Department of Education. (2007). Maryland content standards.

48
 Baltimore, MD: Author.

Maryland State Department of Education. (2009). Maryland Institutional Performance

Criteria based on the Redesign of Teacher Education. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Maryland State Department of Education. (2011). Maryland Institutional Performance
Criteria based on the Redesign of Teacher Education. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2006). Characteristics of excellence
in higher education: Eligibility requirements and standards for accreditation.
Philadelphia, PA: Author.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS]. (2002). What teachers
should know and be able to do. Arlington, VA: Author.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE]. (2006). Professional

standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of
education. Washington, DC: Author.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher

education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective
teachers. Washington, DC: Author.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). Framework for 21st century learning. Tucson,
AZ. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=120

Plaut, S. (Ed.). (2009). The right to literacy in secondary schools: Creating a culture of
thinking. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Polly, D., & Ausband, L. (2009). Developing higher-order thinking skills through web
quests. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(1), 29-34. Retrieved from
http://virtualschooling.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/journal-of-computing-in-
teacher-education-articles/

Porto, S. & Kurtz, G. (2006). “Implementing live technologies to online teaching: An

institutional perspective,” 4th EDEN Research Workshop, Barcelona, Spain,
October 2006.

Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing
tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.

Roeck, K. (2008). Exploring how to change stereotypical attitudes toward students who
are LGBT. Democracy & Education, 18(1), 53-56. Retrieved from

49
 http://www.lclark.edu/live/news/1447-vol-18-no-1-creating-safe-and-caring-
learning

Sabornie, E. J. & deBettencourt, L. U. (2009). Teaching students with mild and high-
incidence disabilities at the secondary level, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.

Salend, S. J. (2008). Determining appropriate testing accommodations. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 40(4), 14-22. Retrieved from
http://www.cec.sped.org/content/navigationmenu/publications2/teach
ingexceptionalchildren/

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Basic Books.

Schön D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schwartz-Bechet, B. (2010, June 9-11). E-learning for teachers: Best practices for
modeling e-teaching practices for e-learners who will become teachers.
Presented at the International Conference on E-Learning in the Workplace, New
York, NY.

Selander, S. (2008). Designs of learning and the formation and transformation of

knowledge in an era of globalization. Studies in Philosophy & Education, 27(4),
267-281. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/0039-3746/27/4/

Sheppard, B., Hurley, N. & Dibbon, D. (2010, April 30-May 4). Distributed leadership,
teacher morale, and teacher enthusiasm: Unravelling the leadership pathways to
school success. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Denver, Co. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov.ezproxy.umuc.edu/PDFS/ED509954.pdf

Shoffner, M. (2009). Personal attitudes and technology: Implications for preservice

teacher reflective practice. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(2), 143-161.
Retrieved from http://www.teqjournal.org/

Snowman, J., McCown, R., & Biehler, R. (2009). Psychology applied to teaching (12th
ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Stiggins, R. (2000). Specifications for a performance-based assessment system for

teacher preparation. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=csmTBrwGXak%3D&tabid=494

Stiggins, R. & Chappius, J. (2006). What a difference a word makes: Assessment FOR
learning rather than OF learning helps students succeed. Journal of Staff
Development, 27(1). Retrieved from

50
 http://www.learningforward.org/news/jsd/index.cfm

Thornton, H. (2006). Dispositions in action: Do dispositions make a difference in

practice? Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2), 53-68. Retrieved from
http://www.teqjournal.org/backvols/2006/33_2/volume_33_number_2.htm
Thornton, H.J. (2010). Excellent teachers leading the way: How to cultivate teacher
leadership. Middle School Journal, 41(4), 36-43. Retrieved from
http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/MiddleSchoolJournal/Articles/March2010/tabid/
2144/Default.aspx

Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare

effective educators. (2010). NCATE report of the blue ribbon panel on clinical
preparation and partnerships for improved student learning. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED512807
Treffinger, D. Young, G, Selby, E., Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing Creativity: A
Guide for Educators. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented:
University of Connecticut.
The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented: University of Connecticut.
UMUC Institutional Plan for the Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes
(2010). Retrieved from:
http://www.umuc.edu/outcomes/upload/Inst_Plan_2010.pdf
University of Maryland University College. (2009). UMUC fact book. Adelphi, MD:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.umuc.edu/ip/factbook.shtml

University of Maryland University College. (2010). Institutional plan for assessment of

student learning outcomes. Adelphi, MD: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. Improve student performance: Teacher’s guide to
international collaboration on the Internet. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/tech/international/guide_pg2.html

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). National

education technology plan 2010: Learning powered by technology. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.

51