Institutional Report - Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions
Last Update: 1/15/04 *

Purdue University - West Lafayette offers initial teacher preparation programs and advanced preparation programs in 36 areas. The programs section of the accreditation website describes these programs.

Current initial teacher preparation programs were created as part of extensive reform efforts that were undertaken in the 1990's. At that time, faculty and administration designed new elementary and secondary teacher education programs that were anchored by the INTASC principles and based on IPSB standards. The design of the new programs relied data from surveys of graduates as well as inputs from faculty and stakeholders including P-12 colleagues. Changes from the previous programs included increased emphasis on inclusive education, a block/cohort design, and greatly expanded field experiences for students.

The new elementary program plan was presented to the faculty in April, 1997, and the new secondary program plan was presented to the faculty in August, 1997. The first courses in the new elementary and secondary teacher education programs were first taught in the fall of 1999, and the final courses were implemented in the spring of 2002. The first graduates of these new programs completed in May 2002. Implementation of gates, as part of the Unit Assessment System, began in fall 2002. The use of the Purdue Electronic Portfolio (PEP) system was initiated in fall 2002, portfolio artifact rubrics for all gates will be in full use by end of spring 2004, and complete implementation of the PEP system will be completed by the end of the 2005 spring semester. (Insert link to Richard's PEP rollout document.)

Purdue's preparation programs are based on research and best practice and are designed to meet the INTASC principles, and the respective IPSB developmental level and content area standards. Based on Purdue's model for professional preparation, initial preparation emphasizes that prospective education professionals should: understand individual development of students; teach effectively by integrating content and pedagogy; use current and emerging technology; adapt instruction to diverse learners; focus on the learner and assess growth and outcomes; collaborate with teachers, parents and community; and practice inclusive education. Initial preparation programs focus on the development of content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of the learning context resulting in the development of candidates' pedagogical content knowledge, the specialized knowledge developed by teachers to help others learn. The elementary and secondary teacher education programs feature cohesive course sequences with multiple field experiences. Four programmatic threads run throughout the programs: technology, diversity, field experience, and portfolio assessment.

In the elementary education program, core courses are arranged in six Blocks, where each Block consists of two to three courses with a shared field experience called Theory Into Practice (TIP).  Block I introduces candidates to education through EDCI 205: Exploring Teaching as a Career, EDCI 285: Multiculturalism and Education, and the first TIP. Block II establishes foundational knowledge through EDPS 235: Learning and Motivation, EDCI 265: The Inclusive Classroom, and TIP II. Block III begins a focus on subject matter teaching with EDCI 361: Social Studies in the Elementary School, EDCI 362: Literacy in the Elementary School I, and TIP III. Block IV includes EDCI 363: Literacy in the Elementary School II, EDCI 364: Mathematics in the Elementary School, EDCI 365: Science in the Elementary School, and TIP IV. Block V focuses on EDCI 466: Integrated Curriculum Development, EDPS 430: Creating and Managing Learning Environments, and TIP V. Block VI is the student teaching experience, EDCI 496: Student Teaching in the Elementary School.

The secondary education program and special education share Blocks I and II with the elementary education program. However, after Block II, special education and secondary discipline programs diverge, with each program having its own required content and methods courses.

Key assessments of initial preparation candidates in elementary and secondary education occur at several checkpoints, referred to as gates, as part of the Unit Assessment System (UAS). These gates include:

• Gate A (entry into teacher education) occurs at the end of Block I,
• Gate B occurs at the end of Block II,
• Gate C occurs at the end of methods courses (Block V in the elementary program or specific methods courses in the secondary program), and
• Gate D occurs at the end of student teaching (Block VI in the elementary program or specific student teaching courses in the secondary program).

Implementation of the gate system began with candidates admitted to teacher education beginning in the fall of 2002.

At each of the four gates, candidates must satisfy multiple assessments. These multiple assessments are employed to judge candidates' knowledge, dispositions, and performances. These assessments include:

• performance in courses, GPA in professional education and content courses, and overall GPA;
• electronic portfolio artifacts;
• Praxis I and II scores;
• a criminal history check, if required by the school in which the candidate is placed, and
• a dispositions assessment system (described below).

At Gate A, which corresponds to the point of admission to teacher education, candidates must have completed all required Gate A courses (Block I for most programs) with no grade lower than a C in any professional education course, meet Praxis I score requirements, meet the GPA requirements for professional education and content courses (at least 3.0), and meet the overall GPA requirements (at least 2.5 in most programs) as established by the faculty of that program. In addition, candidates at Gate A must have completed a satisfactory initial portfolio using the Purdue Electronic Portfolio (PEP) system.

At Gate B, which corresponds to the completion of Block II for most programs, candidates must have completed all required Gate B courses with no grade lower than a C in professional education courses and maintained the required professional education, content, and overall GPA requirements as established by the faculty of that program. In addition, candidates at Gate B must have completed a satisfactory beginning portfolio using the Purdue Electronic Portfolio (PEP) system.

At Gate C, which corresponds to the completion of methods courses for most programs, candidates must have completed all required Gate C courses with no grade lower than a C in professional education courses, passed Praxis II subject assessments/specialty area tests at the required level, and maintained the required professional education, content, and overall GPA requirements as established by the faculty of that program. In addition, candidates at Gate C must have completed a satisfactory developing portfolio using the Purdue Electronic Portfolio (PEP) system. (Because implementation of the portfolio system is on-going, the first artifacts for Gate C courses were produced during the fall 2003; complete implementation of the portfolio system for Gate C will be finished during fall 2004.)

At Gate D, which corresponds to completion of the student teaching experience, candidates must have completed student teaching with no grade lower than a C in professional education courses, requested a Limited Criminal History Report for licensure, and maintained the required professional education, content, and overall GPA requirements as established by the faculty of that program. In addition, candidates at Gate D must have completed a satisfactory proficient portfolio using the Purdue Electronic Portfolio (PEP) system. (Because implementation of the portfolio system is on-going, only a limited number of pilot test artifacts for Gate D have been produced to date; full implementation of the PEP system with gate D is scheduled for spring 2005.) Completion of the baccalaureate degree is required for recommendation for licensure.

The role of portfolios in the preparation programs was originally conceptualized by a Portfolio Task Force, which produced a report in May 2000. Today, a notable element of the Unit Assessment System (UAS) is the Purdue Electronic Portfolio (PEP) system. Developed as part of the Purdue Program for Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to use Technology (P³T³), an implementation grant project funded as part of the U.S. Department of Education's PT³ grant program, the PEP system is a large-scale, database-driven, web-based electronic portfolio application that became a required element of the UAS with candidates who entered teacher education beginning in the fall of 2002. As noted above, satisfactory portfolio progress is required for candidates to pass through each of the gates. Over 2000 users now have accounts in the system. Candidates in initial teacher preparation programs at Purdue use the PEP system to document their knowledge, dispositions, and teaching performances through the creation of artifacts that are assembled into portfolios.

Most portfolio artifacts are key assignments in teacher preparation courses; all of the core courses in the teacher preparation program have required portfolio assignments. Candidates upload files into the PEP database through a secure, password-protected, web-based interface, and create artifacts by assembling one or more files with narratives using a built-in template that provides for some standardization while allowing individual users flexibility. Each candidate has the ability to store up to 650 MB of material, which is the equivalent of the storage of a CD-ROM, and the system accepts all types of digital files including word processing documents, digital photos, PowerPoint presentations, web pages, and digital audio and video files. For example, in EDCI 205 - Exploring Teaching as a Career, the first course in Block I, a candidate uploads three key course assignments to create a portfolio artifact: an educational autobiography, a journal focusing on a cooperating classroom teacher, and an educational philosophy. Course instructors assess candidates' work using rubrics that are linked to standards and the Model of Professional Preparation. The EDCI 205 portfolio assignment described above, linkages to the relevant standards, and the rubric used to assess it are available on the EDCI 205 website. This assessment is translated into a basic Pass/No Pass decision within the PEP system.

Originally, the faculty envisioned portfolio assessment occurring at two levels: individual artifacts within courses and overall portfolios at gates. However, it became clear that extra-course assessment of portfolios for the purpose of gate review would be problematic given the large number of candidates in Purdue's programs. Therefore, the faculty redefined gate portfolio assessment as successful completion of course artifacts leading up to a given gate. The faculty recognizes that holistic assessment of completed portfolios is needed, and this is a problem that will be addressed as PEP implementation continues toward complete rollout in spring 2005.

In addition to functioning as a tool for candidate reflection and assessment, the PEP system can be used for the creation of candidate presentation portfolios, for example, for the job search process. Candidates can allow restricted access to their portfolio via the Web to someone outside of the system (e.g., a prospective employer), or candidates can download a portfolio from the system and burn it to a CD-ROM to show their work. Thus, the PEP system plays a key role in documenting candidates' knowledge and abilities.

Advanced preparation programs are offered for teachers in all areas that offer initial preparation as well as for speech language pathologists, school counselors, and for school and district administrators. Advanced preparation extends initial preparation and adds emphases on the candidate's ability to: create knowledge, synthesize knowledge, communicate knowledge, think critically and reflectively, engage in professional development, and participate actively in their profession. These emphases form the basis of graduate competencies that must be demonstrated by all graduate students in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Graduate students in the Department of Educational Studies must complete foundational course requirements.

Advanced programs for non-teacher school personnel meet standards established by the relevant professional organizations (e.g., the school counseling program is accredited by the CACREP - the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, and the communications disorder program is accredited by ASHA - the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association). Advanced teacher preparation programs meet the same IPSB standards as initial practitioner programs, but at a higher level of proficiency, as well as adhering to the five core propositions of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).

Element 1: Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates

In the initial teacher preparation program, candidates' content knowledge is assessed continuously. Candidates' course performance is monitored throughout the teacher education program through individual course assignments (some of which lead to PEP electronic portfolio artifacts), grades, grade point average, and performance in the field including student teaching. Much of candidates' content knowledge is assured by the academic schools that provide key course work (e.g., mathematics and science in the School of Science, English in the School of Liberal Arts). This is particularly true of secondary teacher education candidates who matriculate in their content disciplines in the respective academic schools.

The gate system provides checkpoints at which specific assessment criteria, including grade point averages, portfolio progress, and completion of other key indicators, must be met. Successful completion of both Praxis I and Praxis II is now built into the gate assessment system. At Gate A candidates must successfully pass Praxis I to enter teacher education, and at Gate C they must pass Praxis II. Data concerning Praxis I passing rates since 1999 are summarized in the following tables. Please note that in the previous phase system (prior to implementation of the gate system in the fall 2002), the basic skills requirement could be met in several ways: Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), American College Testing (ACT), Graduate Records Examination (GRE), Miller Analogies Test (MAT), or the Praxis I (Pre-Professional Skills Test - PPST). At that time, the Praxis I score to be admitted to teacher education at Purdue had a lower cutoff than was required for state licensure, accounting for the discrepancies in passing rates between Tables 3 and 4. In the gate system, which began in fall 2002, the basic skills requirement must be met by Praxis I passing scores at a higher level (which is equal to the cutoff level for state licensure) and must be successfully completed earlier in the program. Thus, there is an increase in the number of candidates completing the test beginning in the 2002-03 academic year, and the percentage of students passing the test is equal to the percentage achieving the state's licensure cutoff level.

Table 3. Praxis I: Academic Skills Assessment Pre-Professional Skills Tests (PPST) Passing Rates for Admission to the Teacher Education Program

Table 4. Praxis I: Academic Skills Assessment Pre-Professional Skills Tests (PPST) Passing Rates for Licensure in the State of Indiana

Data concerning passing rates for Praxis II by specialty area follow. Changes in the specialty categories have occurred over the past four years resulting in changes in the examinations that candidates have taken. Lower passing percentages in disciplines such as Spanish and Physical Education resulted from the disproportionate influence of multiple failures in a very small pool of candidates. Nonetheless, these data have alerted the programs to potential problems.

Table 5. Praxis II: Subject Assessments Specialty Area Tests Passing Rates

As part of the gate system, candidates' content knowledge also is assessed via monitoring of grade point averages and electronic portfolios. As noted above, the GPA requirement for professional education courses is a 3.0 on a 4.0 scale.  The overall and content GPA requirements are established by the faculty of each program. They range from 2.5-3.0 and are designed to ensure that candidates have sufficient content knowledge.  The rigor and comprehensiveness of content requirements for Purdue teacher education programs are exceptional.  Secondary education candidates complete the major in the school that houses the academic program and in most cases must complete the same or similar content courses as an academic content major.  If a candidate fails to meet the GPA requirements at a given gate, then that individual may not proceed in the teacher education program until the GPA deficiency is corrected. 

Candidates' electronic portfolios contain key evidence that address content knowledge as defined in national and state standards. The Purdue Electronic Portfolio (PEP) system asks candidates to directly address the 10 INTASC principles and three themes that the Purdue faculty defined when portfolios were first conceptualized: attention to learners, understanding curriculum in context, and commitment to professional growth. Beyond these, candidates address specific IPSB and other standards through the nature of specific artifacts, which are created in response to specific assignments in core courses that have been mapped to the standards, and narratives written in support of these artifacts.

The gate system began to be phased in during the fall of 2002. At the end of the fall 2002 semester, candidates who had been admitted to teacher education on or after the summer of 2002 completed Gate A. At the end of the spring 2003 semester, this cohort of candidates completed Gate B, and a new cohort completed Gate A. Gate C implementation began in the fall of 2003, and Gate D implementation will take place in the spring of 2004. Therefore, limited data concerning performance under the gate system are available at this time.

A summary of gate actions to date is provided in the Office of Professional Preparation and Licensure (OPPL) annual report for 2002-03. During the period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003, 413 candidates out of 657 reviewed (62.9%) passed Gate A and were admitted to teacher education. The most common reasons for failure to pass Gate A were failure to submit or successfully complete Praxis I (46%) and an overall GPA below the necessary minimum for the program (28%). The somewhat high proportion of failures at Gate A indicates that the new gate system is effectively screening out inadequately prepared candidates, early in the process. While failure is never a desired outcome, this situation is viewed as preferable to additional investments of time and effort, both on the part of the candidate and of the unit, when a successful outcome cannot be obtained. During the same period, 213 or 227 (93.8%) passed Gate B. The most common reasons for failure to pass Gate B were a professional education GPA below the necessary minimum and unsatisfactory completion of Block II courses. During the same period, 8 out of 11 candidates (72.7%) passed Gate C. (Overall numbers at Gate C were low because of the new gate implementation schedule.)  Most candidates still were part of the Phase system.

In addition to these sources of information, data regarding candidates' content knowledge are gathered via surveys of candidates during student teaching, cooperating teacher surveys, and employer surveys of graduates. Surveys have been administered by the Office of Field Experiences (OFE), the Office of Professional Preparation and Licensure (OPPL), and by an ad hoc group of faculty and staff members called the Block Working Group (BWG). Beginning in the fall of 2003, a single survey was administered to student teachers under the auspices of OPPL.

To assess the impact of the reformed teacher education programs, in the fall of 2002 and spring of 2003, the Block Working Group (BWG) was established to study the impact of the new block model. To this end, the BWG conducted surveys of student teachers and their cooperating teachers to assess candidates' preparation. Items specific to the candidates' content preparation were on both surveys. Results from 2003 are summarized in the table below. Results suggest that candidates felt they had adequate content preparation, and most cooperating teachers tended to view the candidates as the same or better prepared in comparison to past Purdue student teachers and to student teachers from other institutions. Roughly twice as many cooperating teachers felt that Purdue student teachers were better prepared  with respect to content knowledge than student teachers from other institutions (37%) as compared to those who thought they were less well prepared (19%). While clearly there is room for improvement, these data suggest that, on average, Purdue student teachers' content knowledge is better.

Table 6. Student Teacher and Cooperating Teacher Survey Results

Content Knowledge for Advanced Teacher Candidates

Advanced level candidates must meet Graduate School requirements for admission.  In addition, all advanced teaching candidates must hold an instructional license and have already mastered entry level knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Advanced programs at the master's degree level require a minimum of 30 credit hours. In the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, all graduate students must satisfy basic graduate competencies. In the Department of Educational Studies, all graduate students must complete foundational course requirements. Specific program requirements are determined by the individual program areas.

Advanced teacher preparation programs are graduate programs; therefore, applicants for these programs must meet the criteria for admission to the Graduate School. In Purdue's College of Education, the baseline criteria for admission include: a relevant bachelor's degree and an undergraduate GPA of at least 3.0 on a 4.0 scale or a Graduate Record Exam verbal and quantitative score total of at least 1000.  Further details, including the recent addition of the writing component may be found in the Exhibit Room.  Applications for admission are reviewed by faculty panels in the program area to which the applicants seek admission. Applicants who fail to meet baseline criteria may be admitted conditionally, but only if the faculty review panel deems that they have a reasonable likelihood of success. Table 7 below lists the number of applicants and rate of acceptance to graduate study in Education since 1999.

Table 7. Graduate Applicants and Rates of Admission

Advanced programs are guided by the standards put forth by the relevant professional organizations (e.g., International Society for Technology in Education for computer education) and the five core propositions of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). At the advanced preparation level, Purdue University seeks to develop accomplished practitioners who are leaders in their fields, who are actively engaged in their professions, and who contribute to the betterment of education and society.

Assessment of candidates' content knowledge at the advanced level relies on course work, monitoring of GPA, and the specific requirements of the program area. Generally, graduate students must maintain at least a 3.0 GPA, and no grade lower than a C may be used on a graduate plan of study. Most graduate programs require that candidates demonstrate proficiency in their content area. For example, individuals pursuing a master's degree in elementary education must prepare a portfolio demonstrating their mastery of the knowledge, dispositions, and performance required by the program. Portfolio assessments are mapped to the Curriculum and Instruction graduate competencies and to the five core propositions of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).

Element 2: Content Knowledge for Other Professional School Personnel

Advanced preparation programs for other school personnel, like those for teachers, are graduate programs. Therefore, as noted above, applicants for these programs must meet the criteria for admission to the Graduate School. In Purdue's College of Education, the baseline criteria for admission include: a relevant bachelor's degree and an undergraduate GPA of at least 3.0 on a 4.0 scale or a Graduate Record Exam verbal and quantitative score total of at least 1000. Applications for admission are reviewed by faculty panels in the program area to which the applicants seek admission. Applicants who fail to meet baseline criteria may be admitted conditionally, but only if the faculty review panel deems that they have a reasonable likelihood of success. See Table 7 above for application and admission rates.

Programs that prepare candidates for educational positions outside the traditional classroom setting involve rigorous coursework focused on the concepts and modes of inquiry central to the field of study. These programs are designed to meet the standards delineated by the national professional organizations that guide each discipline. For example, the program in school counseling is accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). The program in Communication Disorders (Speech Language Pathology) is accredited by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). Programs in school building and district administration meet Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) and Division of Professional Standards (DPS). Programs are implemented by the faculty to support the candidates in meeting the relevant standards, and all programs are currently meeting relevant accreditation guidelines.

Specific mechanisms for ensuring that advanced candidates meet the appropriate professional standards naturally vary from program to program. For example, in the School Counseling program candidates in the practicum are required to complete a minimum of 40 hours of direct service with clients and a minimum of 100 clock hours of general counseling experience. School counseling interns are required to complete a minimum of 600 clock hours of counseling experience in a school setting, including 240 hours of direct service. Practicum and internship candidates receive a minimum of one hour of individual supervision by a site supervisor and two hours of group supervision by the course instructor each week. In the school counseling practicum and internship, candidate knowledge, performance, and dispositions are evaluated throughout the semester through site visits, audiotapes, mid-term feedback from site supervisors, and troubleshooting sessions conducted in group supervision. Practicum and internship instructors review candidate counseling session audiotapes in individual and group supervision. School counseling practicum and internship candidates are evaluated formally by site supervisors at the end of each semester; those evaluations are subsequently reviewed by the course instructor. Course evaluations explicitly address candidate knowledge, dispositions and performances.  In addition, school counseling program faculty members conduct an annual developmental, systematic assessment of each candidate's progress after the conclusion of the spring semester. The annual review includes academic performance and professional and personal development; candidate grades and practicum and internship evaluations are considered in this review.

Element 3: Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates

Initial teacher preparation programs incorporate curricula that integrate the pedagogical content set forth in the INTASC principles and the IPSB developmental and content standards. Courses and programs have been mapped to the standards. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is addressed in the program primarily through methods course work and field experiences. For example, in the elementary education program, candidates have extensive PCK preparation through: Block III, which addresses social studies and literacy teaching methods; Block IV, which addresses literacy, mathematics, and science teaching methods; and Block V, which addresses classroom management and integrated curriculum teaching methods. As part of the Theory Into Practice (TIP) field component of each block, candidates apply PCK in working with children. Elementary education candidates, for example, apply PCK related to literacy in both Blocks III and IV. Block III is taught on site in cooperating area schools, and candidates have multiple opportunities to apply their PCK by creating literacy activities for groups of learners at the school site. In Block IV, the emphasis shifts to working with individual learners; during the TIP, candidates identify learners' problems in reading and writing and work with them to correct these problems. Through this process, the teacher education program provides candidates with the opportunities to develop their PCK.  The student teaching experience represents a culminating opportunity to apply PCK. Consistent with our desire to study the impact of our new curriculum, the Block Working Group surveys of students teachers and cooperating teachers in the fall of 2002 and spring of 2003 included items relevant to pedagogical content knowledge of candidates. Results from spring 2003 are shown in the tables below. These results suggest that candidates generally feel they are well prepared and that cooperating teachers tend to think current candidates are prepared as well as or better than past Purdue student teachers or those from other institutions.

Table 8. Student Teacher Survey Results (Spring 2003)

Table 9. Cooperating Teacher Survey Results (Spring 2003)

As we have noted previously, the use of educational technology is one of the strands that runs throughout the teacher preparation programs at Purdue. The technology strand is composed of three interwoven threads. First, Purdue has a required, 2-credit hour, introductory level, educational technology course, EDCI 270, which candidates take near the beginning of their teacher education program. This course focuses on helping candidates build basic technology knowledge and skills within the context of planning, implementing, and evaluating instruction. Second, instruction in the application of technology in specific disciplines and with a variety of learners is integrated throughout block and methods courses, building on the foundations laid in the beginning course. Technology-based assignments were a requirement of all new courses created for the reformed teacher education programs. Third, technology provides a supporting infrastructure for communication, engagement, and reflection on practice, particularly through the use of the Purdue Electronic Portfolio (PEP) system.

To support the integration of technology in the teacher education programs, Purdue received a 2000 Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to use Technology (PT³) implementation grant from the U.S. Department of Education. The project, entitled " P³T³: Purdue Program for Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to use Technology," project was funded at a propitious moment to play a significant supporting role in the implementation of the new teacher preparation programs. The overall goals of the P³T³ project, which is in its final year (through a non-funded one-year extension) are to: (a) prepare pre-service teachers to demonstrate fundamental technology competencies (as identified in the International Society for Technology in Education's National Educational Technology Standards for teachers), using technology as a tool for teaching/learning, personal productivity, communication, and reflection on their teaching; and (b) prepare teacher education faculty in Education, as well as selected colleagues in Science and Liberal Arts, to teach pre-service teachers in technology-rich environments, modeling approaches that future teachers should use themselves when they teach K-12 students.

The P³T³ project is meeting its goals via three complementary components: (a) a faculty development and mentoring program designed to assist the faculty in learning new teaching/learning technologies and effectively modeling their use in teacher education courses; (b) technology-enabled distance field experiences for pre-service teachers in diverse settings; and (c) the development of a dynamic electronic portfolio system that provides pre-service teachers with the tools to select multiple ways of viewing their evolving teaching practice, reflect on that practice, and use digital representations to meet performance-based assessments.  Ultimately, the intent of the project is that pre-service teachers will learn about technology, see it modeled by their instructors, reflect on their own learning about teaching using digital technologies, and, in the end, use these technologies for teaching and learning with their K-12 students.

According to data gathered as part of the evaluation of the P³T³ project, it has been successful in promoting the use of technology by both faculty and candidates. On a survey conducted in the fall of 2002, 90% of the responding faculty members reported that they integrated technology into their teaching, and 86% reported having changed their curriculum within the past year to add or increase the integration of technology. The most widely reported uses of technology were for: communication with students (86% of responding faculty members), information retrieval (84%), in-class presentations (74%), student projects (65%), and online class discussions (51%). In the spring of 2003, both faculty and candidates were surveyed regarding their perceptions of proficiency with technology. Faculty were asked to rate themselves and typical candidates. Candidates were asked to rate themselves and typical faculty members. Significant percentages of both groups were judged fully proficient by the other group, and very few were rated as beginners. Whereas only 43% of candidates in 2001 agreed that faculty members used technology in class, on the 2003 candidate survey 97% of candidates agreed that faculty used technology in class. This dramatic increase suggests that the project has been successful in encouraging faculty members to integrate technology into their teaching and so model its use. Levels of candidate proficiency with various technologies (e.g., computer hardware use, word processing, spreadsheets, presentation software, Internet and email) showed increases in all categories over the course of the project.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Advanced Teacher Candidates

Advanced programs provide opportunities for the experienced in-service educator to apply pedagogical content knowledge with the learners in his or her own classroom. Given that advanced program candidates have an extensive knowledge base in the subject matter discipline, these candidates can explore the teaching of content in a variety of ways using multiple instructional strategies to meet the needs of the individual learners. Further, because most advanced programs include a component of research or inquiry, advanced candidates are expected to explore the connections among the content, their pedagogy, and forms of assessment. Most advanced programs also require candidates to develop portfolios of their practice, which not only document achievement of relevant standards, but also promote self-reflection and foster inquiry into classroom practices. Examples of advanced program practices can be found in the descriptions of programs.

Element 4: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates

Initial teacher preparation programs incorporate curricula that integrate the pedagogical knowledge, dispositions, and skills set forth in the INTASC principles and the IPSB developmental and content standards. Development of professional and pedagogical skills occurs throughout the teacher preparation programs. See the descriptions of programs for examples of course syllabi that reflect this integration of professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills.

All teacher education candidates take Blocks I and II. Block I includes Exploring Teaching as a Career and Multiculturalism and Education. Block II includes Learning and Motivation and The Inclusive Classroom. In each block, the two courses share a TIP field experience. These Blocks provide a shared foundation for all teacher education candidates, and they are highlighted here as examples of the integration of professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills.

In Exploring Teaching as a Career in Block I, candidates are oriented to the INTASC principles and COE themes. The standards are included in the course packet for reading and incorporated into each assignment completed in the course. In the first assignment, the Educational Autobiography, candidates reflect on their educational experiences and the teachers they have had from primary school through high school. At the end of the paper they are asked to list the standards that they believe are relevant to the paper. They also write an Educational Philosophy paper and in the last paragraph include a reflection on their philosophy in the light of the standards and COE themes. The final assignment is composed of a reflection on their field experiences, and a look back at the first two papers. Candidates address certain standards and all COE themes in detail. They address how they are beginning to meet these standards. After each classroom visit, candidates reflect on what it means to teach and to learn, the nature of schools, and the purpose of schooling in society. They also reflect on a variety of topics related to weekly themes. In Multiculturalism and Education in Block I, candidates consider a range of school, family, and community contexts as they study perspectives on political opinions, socioeconomic class roles, religious beliefs, gender roles, and racial self-image as they intersect with education. They make weekly reflective journal entries and complete a variety of projects that explore how perceptions of culture influence perceptions of self.

In the Block II Theory Into Practice (TIP), candidates have opportunities to work one-on-one with a student (preferably one with special needs or talents), or in a small group, to help the student(s) review for a test, assist with independent work, administer an alternative test accommodation (e.g., reading a test aloud), or re-teach a new skill presented to a large group. Candidates also observe closely and record (i.e., take notes) the interactions and work of a group for the entire lesson or activity. The focus of the observations is on student learning, e.g., what is being learned, what learning strategies or processes are used, and teacher practices. Candidates also have the chance to lead a large group activity that is planned by or in collaboration with the cooperating teacher. Examples of large group activities include: reading a story and asking comprehension questions, administering a spelling test, and leading a review session before a quiz or test. These activities allow candidates to apply the concepts they acquire in the classroom with respect to learning, motivation, and addressing the needs of diverse learners.

Block Working Group surveys of students teachers and cooperating teachers in the fall of 2002 and spring of 2003 included items relevant to professional and pedagogical knowledge of candidates. Results from spring 2003 are shown in the tables below. As with other survey results shown above, these results suggest that candidates overwhelmingly feel that they are well prepared and cooperating teachers tend to think current candidates are prepared as well as or better than past Purdue student teachers or those from other institutions.

Table 10. Student Teacher Survey Results (Spring 2003)

Table 11. Cooperating Teacher Survey Results (Spring 2003)

Element 5: Professional and Skills for Other Professional School Personnel

As noted above, advanced programs are designed to meet the standards delineated by the national professional organizations that guide each discipline. The program in school counseling is accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). The program in Communication Disorders (Speech Language Pathology) is accredited by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). Programs in school building and district administration meet Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) and Divison of Professional Standards (DPS). Programs are implemented by the faculty to support the candidates in meeting the relevant standards.

Advanced program candidates expand their existing content and pedagogical knowledge base through course work and through application of professional knowledge and skills within the context of their own educational setting. All advanced programs rely on performance assessment through means including course assignments, projects, exams, and products. In addition, internship experiences provide an opportunity for growth and development in actual educational settings. Most advanced programs also include a component of research or inquiry, and advanced candidates are expected to develop their understanding of research and best practice. In educational administration programs, for example, administrators use their existing school setting to collect and analyze school data to better understand their practice and to seek mechanisms for school improvement.

Element 6: Disposition for All Candidates

In addition to appropriate knowledge and performances, educators are expected to possess appropriate dispositions. According to NCATE, "Dispositions are the values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence behaviors toward students, families, colleagues, and communities and affect student learning, motivation, and development as well as the educator's own professional growth. Dispositions are guided by beliefs and attitudes related to values such as caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility, and social justice." Dispositions are addressed in the initial and advanced preparation programs, and candidates dispositions are monitored during course work, field experiences, and interactions with others.

At the university level, Purdue University recently adopted a Statement of Integrity that expresses what is expected of the institution and the individuals who live and work in this scholarly community. The Statement espouses many important values and principles including: trust and trustworthiness, ethical conduct, responsibility, freedom of expression, diversity, fairness, equality, and others. This Statement emphasizes the university commitment to integrity in support of the highest standards of excellence.

In teacher education, there is a focus on those dispositions most closely allied with the conduct of teacher. A Candidate Disposition Assessment Process, approved by Purdue's Teacher Education Council in 2002, identifies the following dispositions as important for all educators. These dispositions derive from the INTASC principles; specific principles related to each statement are given in parentheses.

• Is sensitive to community and cultural norms, and engages in and supports appropriate professional practices for self and colleagues.  (3) (9)
• Demonstrates a willingness to work with other professionals to improve the overall learning environment for students.  (7) (9) (10)
• Takes responsibility for establishing a positive classroom climate and recognizes the importance of peer relationships in establishing a climate of learning.  (3) (5)
• Respects students as individuals and respects students' privacy and confidentiality of information.  (3) (10)
• Treats all students fairly and equitably, valuing individual differences and experiences.  (2) (3) (5) (6) (8) (9)
• Demonstrates an awareness of all aspects of a child's well being (cognitive, emotional, social, and physical).  (3) (6) (10)
• Shows commitment to adapting instruction to students' responses, ideas, and needs in order to facilitate the development of students' critical thinking, independent problem solving, and performance capabilities.  (1) (4) (5) (9)
• Demonstrates flexibility and is open to adjustment and revision based on needs and changing circumstances.  (1) (4) (7)
• Exhibits behaviors that show a commitment to planning, reflection, assessment, and learning as on-going processes.  (1) (5) (7) (8) (9)
• Demonstrates thoughtful, effective verbal and nonverbal communication and responsive listening. (6)
• Demonstrates enthusiasm for the discipline(s) taught, keeps abreast of new ideas and developments in the field, and sees connections to everyday life.  (1)

The unit promotes these dispositions in a variety of ways. Many courses explicitly address specific dispositions. For example, courses in multiculturalism and inclusion in the classroom stress respecting students as individuals, valuing individual differences, and showing commitment to adapting instruction to students' needs. Faculty model the conduct expected of candidates, and they stress that candidates must demonstrate professional behavior especially when working at a school site. In addition, the Candidate Disposition Assessment Process provides a means for identifying and addressing dispositional problems.

The Candidate Disposition Assessment Process is intended primarily as a formative assessment tool to identify potential problems early so that they can be corrected. Faculty, staff, and cooperating classroom teachers are asked to monitor candidates' dispositions and bring any deficiencies to the attention of the candidate, the candidate's advisor, the Office of Field Experiences (OFE), and the Office of Professional Preparation and Licensure (OPPL). The categories of behaviors, derived from the dispositions identified above, which are monitored are: Legal/Ethical Conduct, Attendance/Punctuality, Professional Appearance and Demeanor, Reliability/Dependability, Interactions with Others, Fairness/Lack of Bias, Safety/Responsible Conduct, Flexibility/Adaptability/Openness to Feedback, Communicative Effectiveness, Commitment to Student Learning, Commitment to Improving Teaching Performance, and Commitment to Profession. While the main intent of the Candidate Disposition Assessment Process is to identify potential problems early so that they can be corrected, repeated dispositional problems may be grounds for removing the candidate from the teacher education program.

Dispositions for Advanced Candidates

As reflected in the Model for Professional Preparation, at the advanced level there is an emphasis in Purdue's programs on candidates' abilities to: create knowledge, synthesize knowledge, communicate knowledge, think critically and reflectively, engage in professional development, and participate actively in their profession. As a result, dispositions that reflect these attributes are valued in advanced candidates. Further, dispositions are embodied within the standards of the professional organizations that guide advanced programs.

Element 7: Student Learning for Teacher Candidates

Student learning is a key indicator of candidate proficiency. In initial teacher preparation programs, candidates have multiple opportunities to prepare lessons for students and to assess student learning. These opportunities begin in the Theory Into Practice (TIP) field experiences that accompany the Block courses, and they culminate in the student teaching experience. As part of the student teaching experience, all candidates are expected to develop instructional activities that address the needs of students of diverse backgrounds and abilities as well as assess the learning of these students. For student teaching, candidates are expected to prepare portfolio artifacts that focus on a personal work sample, such as a lesson, from planning through implementation to assessment and reflection. A handbook for work sample preparation was prepared as part of a pilot project described below. An important element of these work samples is evidence of student work created under the direction of the candidate. This student work provides direct evidence of the candidate's impact on student learning. Examples of candidates' work are included in the Exhibit Room and some are also in the PEP system (although PEP use is not yet required for candidates at the point of student teaching).

During the 2002-03 academic year, with funding from a Title II grant from the Indiana Professional Standards Board, the College of Education launched a pilot project to document the impact on student learning of a select group of elementary education student teachers. The purpose of the project was to create and implement an electronic assessment process that linked evidence of candidate learning with K-12 student performance on Indiana academic standards. This was accomplished through a proof of concept demonstration in which the student teachers used Documenting Indicators of Academic Standards (DIAS), an electronic portfolio system created by the Assessment Research Center at Purdue University, to document how students in their classes achieved elements of the Indiana academic content standards. The student teachers then integrated reports from DIAS into their own Purdue Electronic Portfolio (PEP) portfolios, thereby providing direct evidence of student learning within the evidence that they assembled about their own teaching practice. Because the project successfully demonstrated working examples, the College of Education is moving to make use of DIAS with PEP a requirement of student teaching.  Over the next eighteen months, it is our intention that methods courses to prepare candidates will use the two systems, and efforts will be made to provide for direct electronic interchange between the two systems. Thus, plans call for documentation of student learning to become an integral part of the teacher preparation programs at Purdue.

Student Learning for Advanced Candidates

Most advanced programs require candidates to develop portfolios of their practice, which document the candidate's achievement of relevant standards. Collection of relevant student work documenting the impact of the candidate's efforts. While the use of PEP and DIAS are not yet a required component of advanced programs, initial explorations of the integration of these tools into programs for advanced candidates has begun. Examples of advanced program candidate materials can be found in the Exhibit Room.

Element 8: Student Learning for Other Professional School Personnel

Other professional school personnel do not have the direct influence on student learning that classroom teachers have. Nonetheless, there is an expectation that programs for other school personnel will produce education professionals who foster a climate that is conducive to student learning. Through course work and practica, advanced programs develop candidates' abilities to: create knowledge, synthesize knowledge, communicate knowledge, think critically and reflectively, engage in professional development, and participate actively in their profession. For example, all Educational Leadership and Cultural Foundations courses required for building level and/or district level licenses have a Standards Journal assignment as a course requirement. The standards vary from course to course, but the assignment runs across all courses and provides the candidate and faculty with an annual and course-by-course performance assessment of candidate progress toward standards attainment. Key to this approach is a focus on data gathering and analysis and an attention to the effects of practice on student learning. Educational administration courses such as EDST 511, Information Systems in Education, EDST 610, Supervision of Instruction and Instructional Personnel, and EDST 613, Learning Environments, have course assignments that require collection and analysis of data related to student learning. Naturally, specifics vary from program to program, but each program is dedicated to developing reflective, thoughtful, educational leaders who rely on research and best practice to guide decision-making that is in the best interest of student learning.

Evidence

* Please note, this site was prepared for the March 6-10, 2004, NCATE/IPSB Board of Examiners visit. The information posted here is available to the public and every attempt is being made to ensure its completeness and accuracy. If you have any updates or corrections, or have difficulty accessing or locating any documents, please contact T. J. Oakes, NCATE Coordinator, at oakest@purdue.edu or 765-494-5486, or contact Richard Frisbie, Assessment Coordinator and WebMaster at rfrisbie@purdue.edu or 765-494-2360.