Institute of Professional Excellence

Research and Reflection for Learning and Leading

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
www.uky.edu/Education/NCATE

WIPE-VF1-2013 1
 The Conceptual Framework for the
Professional Training & Development

Abstract

The conceptual framework for the professional training & development division at Institute of
Professional Excellence (A strategic unit of WELTH Foundation) is guided by the theme,
Research and Reflection for Learning and Leading. The theme reflects and guides how we
approach preparation of professionals in corporate business and education sectors.

Research is a valued activity and tool for the preparation of practiced training programs. Faculty
and candidates generate scientific research using a wide range of research methodologies and
contribute to the professional literature. Programs use practitioner inquiry and data-based
instructional models in applied settings to enhance student learning and practiced development.
Research findings from the entire field of education inform design of courses, selection of
intervention, and features of professional education programs.

Reflection is a long-standing aspect to prepare specialized training programs and a hallmark of

professional practices. Reflective assessment of performance, outcomes and approaches to
problems is a dynamic process in initial stages of their careers. Candidates are expected to
complete frequent reflective activities as they work to meet standards; the goal is to prepare
innovative experts who are capable of analysis and problem-solving that will result in improving
training & development practices and outcomes.

Learning is included as a component within our conceptual framework to accentuate our

commitment to the many facets of learning and to highlight the ways in which our programs
conceptualize, promote, and accomplish learning. Faculty and Trainees conceptualize learning
using a wide range of perspectives including behavioral, constructivist, and social. We believe that
our diversity of thought enriches and strengthens the institution.

Leading is an expectation that faculty hold for ourselves and an outcome that we promote among
our candidates. We believe it is our obligation and privilege to provide leadership in educational
and training & development policies and practices across the board. As leaders and followers work
together to improve student learning among diverse student populations, we can obtain positive
results that improve educational and professional development.

The four elements of our conceptual framework are synergistic and mutually supportive of our
work. Taken as a whole, research, reflection, learning, and leading provide a strong conceptual
basis and functional framework for the preparation of young educators and professionals.

WIPE-VF1-2013 2
THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:
Research and Reflection for Learning and Leading

The conceptual framework for the professional training & development division is guided by the
theme, Research and Reflection for Learning and Leading.

Principles of the Institution

Vision of the Institution
The W-IPE will be one of the nation's best professional training institutions recognized world-wide
for excellence in teaching, research and service to the nation and a catalyst for intellectual, social,
cultural, and economic development.

Mission of the Institution:

The W-IPE is dedicated to improve people's lives through excellence in teaching, research, health
care, cultural enrichment, and economic development.

The Institute of Professional Excellence:

 Facilitates learning, informed by scholarship and research.
 Expands knowledge through research, scholarship, and creative activity.
 Serves a global community by disseminating, sharing, and applying knowledge.

Values of the Institution:

The values of the W-IPE guide its decisions and the behavior of its community. Its core values are:
 Integrity
 Academic excellence and academic freedom
 Mutual respect and human dignity
 Embracing diversity
 Personal and institutional responsibility and accountability
 Shared governance
 A sense of community
 Sensitivity to work-life concerns
 Civic responsibility
 Service to society

Strategic Plan for the Institution

The plan identifies five strategic goals and objectives for each of the goals that will guide the
institution has it strives for status. These goals and objectives are:

Goal I: Enhance the institution’s stature among its peers

 Develop or update plans for achieving excellence in all its endeavors, in accordance with
the Top 20 Business Plan.
 Update its capital project priorities and master plan to accommodate a larger faculty and
student body and the expansion of research and clinical operations all over the country.
 Recruit additional faculty members to teach a larger student body and enhance substantially
its research and engagement efforts.

WIPE-VF1-2013 3
  Offer competitive salaries, benefits, and professional support to retain and attract
outstanding faculty and staff.
Goal II: Prepare students for leadership in the knowledge economy and global society
 Enhance interdisciplinary learning and inter-professional training
 Increase opportunities for national and multicultural educational experiences for its
students
 Set and achieve six-year growth and quality targets for graduated professionals
 Integrate more aggressively its teaching, research, and outreach missions
Goal III: Enhance the intellectual and economic capital of Kentucky through growth in
research
 Cultivate and celebrate the full range of efforts in creative achievement and research
 Invest strategically in research areas of current strength, emerging interest, and greatest
importance
 Develop the infrastructure and administrative support required to achieve Top 20 status
 Actively transmit the benefits of its knowledge and expertise to the public it serves
Goal IV: Embrace and nurture diversity
 Adopt an organizational structure that supports diversity, makes explicit the shared
responsibility of the entire community, and facilitates the achievement of its aspirations
 Establish a coherent, focused, institution-wide implementation strategy to achieve diversity
 Ensure that its core belief in the value of diversity is manifest in its curriculum
 Use its community engagement efforts to affirm the value of diversity and promote
dialogue about pressing social issues

Principles of UK’s Professional Education Unit

The College of Education at the University of Kentucky will become one of the nation's 20 best
public professional education units with emphasis on research, reflection, learning, and leading in
service to the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world.

Mission of the Unit

The W-IPE is dedicated to improve people's lives through excellence in teaching, research, health
care, cultural enrichment, and economic development. It endeavors to expand the knowledge of
teaching and learning processes across a broad educational spectrum. The institution fosters a
culture of reflective practice and inquiry within a diverse community of students, faculty and staff.
Values of the Unit
To embracing the values of the institution, faculty prepared a statement of core values—attitudes,
behaviors, and commitments that demonstrates our shared vision of becoming a nationally
recognized institution of professional training & development:

 Service to the diverse needs and aspirations of candidates and faculty

 Adherence to professional and state standards for education professions
 Participation in generating and evaluating educational initiatives and policies
 Generation and application of scientific and practitioner research
 Professional reflection to ensure continuous growth and improvement
 Encouragement of lifetime learning and wellness

WIPE-VF1-2013 4
  Leadership for educative growth.

Philosophy and Purpose of the Unit

As a professional education unit in a public, research extensive, land-grant university, we are
uniquely suited to carry out the institutional mission of teaching, research, and service and be a
catalyst for intellectual, social, cultural, and economic development. We believe that faculty and
candidates grow professionally as they engage in research, reflection, learning, and leading. These
four elements are synergistic and mutually supportive of our work. Hence, the purpose of the
professional education unit at the University of Kentucky is to prepare individuals who value
research, reflective practice, life-long learning, and leadership in education and wellness for a
variety of roles in educational settings and community agencies.

Goals of the Unit

The goals of the unit are closely aligned with the goals expressed in the strategic plan of the
University of Kentucky, which is described in the previous section. Specific strategies,
programmatic initiatives, and actions guiding the professional education unit are outlined in the
College of Education Strategic Action Plan, 2006-2009, which can be accessed at
www.uky.edu/Education/Strategic_Plan.htm.

Historical Development of the Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of the professional education unit at the University of Kentucky has
been continuously reviewed and revised over the past 15 years, as depicted in Table 1. In 1992 the
faculty adopted the original conceptual framework, guided by the theme The Teacher as Reflective
Decision Maker. This framework was proposed by the Professional Education Sequence
Committee (PESC) convened by Dean Edgar Sagan in 1989. The PESC was charged with an
extensive agenda that included developing more coherence in the sequence of required courses for
teacher certification and enhancing collaborations among faculty teaching courses in the
professional sequence. Members of PESC were representative of all teacher education programs
within the unit, and the committee sought input from a wide range of constituents including
candidates, graduates, professionals working in local schools, and faculty colleagues working in
areas other than teacher education, including school administration, foundations, and educational
psychology. The three-year effort by the PESC yielded a number of recommendations, one of
which was to use the framework of reflective decision-making to strengthen the knowledge,
experience, and performance of all candidates involved in teacher preparation programs at the
University of Kentucky. Indeed, reflective decision-making became the theme of the PESC Report,
which was adopted by the faculty in 1992, and The Teacher as Reflective Decision Maker became
the overriding emphasis for preparation programs in the unit at that time.

Throughout the ensuing years, the conceptual framework theme was revisited to determine if it
would be appropriate to guide other professional educator programs in the unit and to determine
alignment of the framework with the mission and goals of the institution and the unit. In August
1998, the unit faculty met at its annual retreat to discuss adoption of the theme, Preparing
Professional Educators as Reflective Decision Makers, for other professional education programs
in the unit. Additionally, faculty reviewed the alignment of the theme with the unit’s mission

WIPE-VF1-2013 5
statement. Working in small, cross-disciplinary groups, faculty reviewed the conceptual
framework and addressed the following questions:

 Does the conceptual framework continue to accurately reflect the college’s programs?
 Does the conceptual framework address the diversity of the college’s programs? How? If
not, what changes should be made to address all programs?
 Does the conceptual framework address both initial and advanced programs? How? If not,
what changes should be made to address both program levels?
 What linkages exist between the conceptual framework and mission statement in the areas
of undergraduate and graduate education, research, and service?

WIPE-VF1-2013 6
Table 1: Historical Development of the Unit Conceptual Framework

Year Action Group Purpose of Group Membership of Group Results

1989 Committee Professional Develop more coherence Professional education Following three years of
appointed by Education in the sequence of faculty, faculty in other deliberation, recommendations
dean to Sequence required courses for university units, P-12 made in 1992 regarding
review Committee teacher certification and school personnel, professional education courses,
teacher (PESC) enhance collaborations candidates, graduates including the recommendation to
preparation among faculty teaching adopt the unifying theme of The
curriculum courses in the professional Teacher as Reflective Decision
sequence Maker

1992 Review of the Faculty Council Serves as advisory group Faculty representative Approved all aspects of PESC
PESC report, to dean; initiates policy from each department report including theme, The
including the revisions for review by and three elected at- Teacher as Reflective Decision
theme, The unit faculty large members Maker
Teacher as
Reflective Administrative Serves as advisory group Dean, associate deans, Approved all aspects of PESC
Decision Council to dean on matters related business manager, report including theme, The
Maker to operation of the unit department chairs, unit Teacher as Reflective Decision
heads Maker
Program Serves as communication/ Chairs of all Approved all aspects of PESC
Faculty Chairs coordinating group across professional education report including theme, The
Group all professional education programs at UK; Teacher as Reflective Decision
programs in the unit directors of academic Maker
services/teacher
certification, field
experiences/school
collaboration; associate
deans

Adopted 9/12/06 6
 Unit Faculty Plans, implements, and Faculty in the College of Approved all aspects of PESC
evaluates curriculum and Education and faculty in report including theme, The
experiences for affiliated professional Teacher as Reflective Decision
professional educator educator programs in Maker
programs in the unit; other units on campus
conducts continuous
assessment of candidate
performance; uses
candidate performance
data to improve programs
1998 Review of Unit Faculty [See 1992 row above for Faculty in the College of Broadened the theme of The
conceptual full notation of “Purpose Education and faculty in Teacher as Reflective Decision
framework at of Group” for Unit affiliated professional Maker to Professional Educator
annual Faculty] educator programs in as Reflective Decision Maker and
faculty retreat other units on campus endorsed the concept for all
professional educator programs
at the University of Kentucky
2003 Identification Program Serves as communication/ Chairs of all Approval of functional skills and
of functional Faculty Chairs coordinating group across professional education dispositions for candidates in
skills and Group all professional education programs at UK; professional educator programs;
dispositions programs in the unit directors of academic submission of functional skills
services/teacher and dispositions to unit faculty
certification, field for approval as part of revised
experiences/school admissions, retention, and exit
collaboration; associate policy
deans
Approved Unit Faculty [See 1992 row above for Faculty in the College of Approval of functional skills and
revised full notation of “Purpose Education and faculty in dispositions for candidates in
policies for of Group” for Unit affiliated professional professional educator programs
functional Faculty] educator programs in
skills and other units on campus
dispositions

Adopted 9/12/06 7
2005 Review of Faculty Council Serves as advisory group Faculty representative Approval of revised mission
Spring revised unit to dean; initiates new from each academic statement to align more closely
mission policies and policy department and three with state and institutional
statement in revisions for review by elected at-large faculty emphasis on research
response to unit faculty members
adoption of Council of Serves as advisory group Dean, associate dean for Approval of revised mission
new Chairs to dean academic and student statement to align more closely
institutional services, associate dean with state and institutional
mission for research and emphasis on research
graduate studies,
department chairs, chair
of Faculty Council
Unit Faculty [See 1992 row above for Faculty in the College of Approval of revised mission
full notation of “Purpose Education and faculty in statement to align more closely
of Group” for Unit affiliated professional with state and institutional
Faculty] educator programs in emphasis on research (March
other units on campus 2005)
2005 Review of Unit Faculty [See 1992 row above for Faculty in the College of Recommended that the existing
Fall conceptual full notation of “Purpose Education and faculty in conceptual framework be revised
framework, of Group” for Unit affiliated professional to include an emphasis on
Preparing Faculty] educator programs in research and more closely align
Professional other units on campus with the unit’s revised mission
Educators as statement; recommended that the
Reflective dean appoint a Conceptual
Decision Framework Committee to
Makers, at prepare a revised document for
annual fall faculty consideration in 2005-
retreat 2006

Adopted 9/12/06 8
2005 Develop Conceptual Consider suggestions from Faculty representatives Presented theme and new vision
Fall- proposal for Framework faculty; propose a new and associate dean in the statement to governing groups
2006 revised Committee theme, vision statement, College of Education within the unit for approval
Spring conceptual and goals aligned with before revising the conceptual
framework theme; and write the framework
conceptual framework
document
2006 Review of NCATE/EPSB Makes recommendations Dean; associate deans; Reviewed and approved new
new vision Accreditation related to accreditation directors of academic vision statement and revised
statement and Steering and program approval services/teacher conceptual framework theme,
revised Committee standards and processes certification, field Research and Reflection for
conceptual experiences/school Learning and Leading (January)
framework collaboration;
proposed by department chairs;
Conceptual instructional technology
Framework staff; web master
Committee Faculty Council Serves as advisory group Faculty representative Reviewed and approved new
to dean; initiates policy from each academic vision statement and revised
revisions for review by department and three conceptual framework theme,
unit faculty elected at-large faculty Research and Reflection for
members Learning and Leading (January)
Council of Serves as advisory group Dean, associate dean for Reviewed and approved new
Chairs to dean for matters related academic and student vision statement and revised
to unit operations services, associate dean conceptual framework theme,
for research and Research and Reflection for
graduate studies, Learning and Leading (January)
department chairs, chair
of Faculty Council

Adopted 9/12/06 9
 Program Serves as communication/ Chairs of all Reviewed and approved new
Faculty Chairs coordinating group across professional education vision statement and revised
Group all professional education programs at UK; conceptual framework theme,
programs in the unit directors of academic Research and Reflection for
services/teacher Learning and Leading (January)
certification, field
experiences/school
collaboration; associate
deans
Unit Faculty [See 1992 row above for Faculty in the College of Reviewed and approved new
full notation of “Purpose Education and faculty in vision statement and revised
of Group” for Unit affiliated professional conceptual framework theme,
Faculty] educator programs in Research and Reflection for
other units on campus Learning and Leading, on
February 14, 2006

2006 Prepared Conceptual Integrate suggestions from Faculty representatives Presented final committee
Spring conceptual Framework unit faculty in the final and associate dean for version of conceptual framework
Summer framework to Committee revision of conceptual College of Education to unit faculty for review and
present at framework adoption
unit faculty’s
fall retreat
2006 Approved Unit Faculty [See 1992 row above for Faculty in the College of 2006 Conceptual Framework
Fall entire full notation of “Purpose Education and faculty in document included in
Conceptual of Group” for Unit affiliated professional accreditation materials as the
Framework Faculty] educator programs in official description of the unit’s
document other units on campus conceptual framework

Adopted 9/12/06 10
At the conclusion of the 1998 retreat, the faculty reaffirmed the concept of reflective decision-
making for all educators and adopted the theme, Preparing Professional Educators as
Reflective Decision Makers, as the guiding theme for all professional preparation programs in
the unit.

This theme continued to guide the preparation of candidates, the work of faculty, and course
and program revisions and development. The major change to the framework during this time
frame was the identification and implementation of a set of functional skills and dispositions
required of candidates in professional education programs. In 2003, the program faculty chairs
drafted a set of functional skills and dispositions and sought feedback from faculty in all
professional education programs across campus. These statements were approved by unit
faculty as part of a revised admission, retention, and exit policy, which was reviewed and
endorsed by the University Senate. These functional skills and dispositions will be described in
more detail later in this document.

In House Bill 1 passed in 1997, the Kentucky General Assembly established a goal for the
University of Kentucky to become a Top 20 research institution by the year 2020. This priority
has refocused the attention of the institution, and thus the unit, on its research mission.
Accordingly, in 2003 the University of Kentucky revised its mission statement and adopted a
vision statement that reflects this increased emphasis on research. As a result of these
expectations and changes at the state and institutional levels, the unit reviewed its current
mission statement during the 2004-2005 academic year. The Faculty Council, with input from
the Council of Chairs, drafted a revised mission statement to reflect this increased priority on
research. The revision was approved by the unit faculty at its March 2005 meeting. These
discussions also focused on the need to review the unit conceptual framework, Preparing
Professional Educators as Reflective Decision Makers, to ensure that it continued to align with
institutional and unit mission statements.

Consequently, a review and discussion of the conceptual framework was included as an agenda
item at the annual faculty retreat in August 2005. Working in small groups at the retreat,
faculty reviewed the framework, agreed the framework should be revised, and volunteered
ideas for strengthening the framework to better reflect the expanded emphasis on research and
inquiry. Further, the faculty recommended that the dean appoint a Conceptual Framework
Committee to revise the conceptual framework document and present the revised document for
faculty approval during the 2005-2006 academic year. During the initial stages of its work, the
committee submitted a revised theme, Research and Reflection for Learning and Leading, and
introduced the unit’s first-ever vision statement to the Council of Chairs, the Faculty Council,
the Program Faculty Chairs, and the NCATE/EPSB Steering Committee for review and
feedback. Both the theme and the vision statements were approved by the unit faculty at its
regularly scheduled meeting on February 14, 2006. Members of the professional community
and university faculty will review the revised framework and provide feedback on the overall
document throughout the 2006-2007 academic year.

Knowledge Bases

Adopted 9/12/06 11
The knowledge bases described in this section apply to programs in the professional education
unit at the University of Kentucky. Each program will elaborate on how the conceptual
framework applies to the design, implementation, and evaluation of the unit’s educator
preparation programs; these documents are available on respective program web pages. The
following sections provide an overview of how the theme of Research and Reflection for
Learning and Leading is conceptualized for the unit.

Research and Reflection for Learning and Leading

Research is a valued activity and tool within the unit and the university. Goals I, III, and V in
the College of Education Strategic Plan pertain to scholarship. Scholarship refers to the work
of both faculty and candidates and to the application of research in our outreach activities.
There are numerous ways in which research and scholarship are conceptualized in the unit,
including the generation of scientific research, use of practitioner inquiry models, thoughtful
consumption of research, and the incorporation of research-based models in educator
preparation.

Scientific models of research by faculty and candidates. As a unit in a university

classified RU/VH: Research University (very high research activity) by Carnegie
Classifications, faculty in the professional education unit at the University of Kentucky are
dedicated to conducting scientific research in many areas of education; teaching rigorous,
scientific research skills to our advanced candidates; assisting our candidates in conducting
their own research projects; and preparing our candidates to consume and apply findings of
educational research.

Debates over research methodology are nothing new in the educational research community.
The current debate stems from federal legislation and ensuing reports that have caused us to
reflect critically on our practices as educational researchers. Since the passage of No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001 and the publication of Scientific Research in Education (SRE) by
the National Research Council (NRC) in 2002, there has been renewed discussion about what
constitutes “rigorous” and “scientific” research. The NRC’s follow-up report in 2004,
Advancing Scientific Research in Education (ASRE), keeps the debate fueled. Both reports
challenge educational researchers to do more to promote the use of empirical studies to inform
practice, particularly the use of randomized experiments for the purpose of discovering causal
relationships. Opponents of the reports take umbrage with the implied favoritism the NRC
shows toward randomized experiments as a more “legitimate” form of research and contend
that pluralism and recognition of the benefits of all forms of educational research are essential.
Furthermore, in its 2004 report, ASRE, the NRC says, “Standardization [of methodology]
without the flexibility to accommodate varying points of view leads to stultification. We seek
to harness and extend the diversity of the field, while calling for attention to defining and
reinforcing a common professional culture” (p. 17).

We support the underlying rationale described by NRC but would be remiss not to
acknowledge the other side of the debate. For instance, Florio-Ruane (2002) says that the NRC
is responding to a pervasive sense of crisis about education in the United States, and
prescribing research methodologies is probably a natural, albeit simplistic and inadequate,

Adopted 9/12/06 12
response. “Unless we take the time and the responsibility to keep our work – and our field –
complex, we will be unable to resist crisis-driven, regressive behaviors that harden the lines of
power and authority and limit educational inquiry” (p. 214).

Finally, some opponents of the NRC reports claim that the diversity in the field of education is
so vast that advancing one methodology, such as randomized experiments, over many other
forms of legitimate research is not only prescriptive but also places grave restrictions on the
types of knowledge that can be gained through research. Because learning environments are
situated, qualitative methodologies are absolutely necessary for understanding and improving
educational practices. The findings from interpretive studies complete quantitative studies, like
randomized experiments, by providing context and explaining “what” quantitative researchers
see in their studies. Promoting only one methodological approach paints an incomplete picture
that can be completed only through interpretive methods (Erickson & Gutierrez, 2002;
Fenstermacher, 2002; Florio-Ruane, 2002; Odom et al., 2005; St. Pierre, 2002). Fenstermacher
(2002) notes, “those kinds of research that do not typically strip agency, context, and
complexity from their design and methodological features also serve, when done well, as
means for the sensitive interpretation and application of large-scale social science findings” (p.
246).

Reviewing this literature of the debate has made it clearer to us that a continuing discussion
about the principles of educational research is absolutely necessary for the health of our
profession, but prescribing methodological approaches in the midst of such complexity is
definitely limiting. Within UK’s professional education unit, faculty and candidate researchers
are well aware of the debate and contribute to the bodies of knowledge in their fields using
numerous methodological approaches to provide not only generalizable data through
randomized experiments but also single-subject designs, and context-specific, thick
descriptions to enhance our understanding of the contexts of reflecting, learning, and leading.

Practitioner inquiry models. Another concept of research promoted in the unit is

practitioner inquiry. One way to understand how we as educational professionals and our
candidates develop deeper understandings of educational processes is to conduct disciplined
inquiry and reflect upon the experiences we have in professional settings (Jarvis, 1998). Falk
and Blumenreich (2005) define inquiry as an activity that is organized, conducted over time,
with a clear set of goals and a systematic approach. They assert that
Systematic research about our students and teaching – through observation,
documentation, and reflection – can help us to make informed decisions that support
our students’ development. It can help us to look at what we do in a fresh way. A
systematic study also provides a process for us to become aware of any assumptions
and biases we carry with us that may affect how we view and resolve our questions.
(pp. 2-3)

Whether one is a classroom teacher, an administrator, a school psychologist, a social worker,

or a university professor, we can gain valuable knowledge of our candidates, ourselves, and
context-specific experiences through various inquiry models. Examples include action
research, appreciative inquiry, and data-based classroom/school projects (Cooperrider &
Whitney, 1999; Hammond, 1996; Sagor, 2000; Stringer, 1999). Each program within the unit

Adopted 9/12/06 13
promotes disciplined inquiry as a legitimate, critically important component of our research
and practice.

We recognize that part of the debate mentioned in the scientific models of research section is
prompted by questions of the legitimacy of knowledge gathered through practitioner research.
However, we believe that knowledge gained through traditional scientific models and through
more context-specific means provides valuable insights for reflective professionals whose goal
is to enrich the learning experiences of all who are involved in the process. Apple (2000)
would call this a debate about what constitutes official knowledge. Agreeing with Dewey
(1933), Apple says that curriculum is “a complicated and continual process of environmental
design” (p. 138). It is an issue of the politics and power of whose knowledge we accept, and we
choose to empower our candidates and their students by giving them the tools of practitioner
inquiry to recognize their own constructed knowledge, while at same time recognizing the
knowledge others bring to the table.

Research and Reflection for Learning and Leading

Reflection is a process of deliberate thinking or thoughtful pondering that generates “intelligent

action” (Dewey, 1933, p. 17), the deliberate preparation for proactive intervention leading to
intended consequences. Because education professionals, regardless of their careers or work
settings, must regularly assess their performance and the resulting outcomes, reflection is the
second component of our conceptual framework. Goals IV and V in the College of Education
Strategic Plan pertain to reflection as a critical element of professional practice for faculty and
candidates in this unit and university.

Although Dewey (1933) is credited with defining reflective thinking as a means to understand
phenomena or find solutions to problems, other authors have differentiated reflection. Schön
(1983), who stimulated renewed interest in the concept of intelligent action, posits that
professionals make decisions by applying technical skills (e.g., applying a set of rules to a
well-defined problem that assumedly has a right answer) and using intuitive knowledge (i.e.,
solving complex problems that are unique or uncertain). He coined the term reflection-in-
action to describe a “practitioner’s feel for artistic performance” (p. 282). Reflection-in-action
occurs when a professional knows intuitively what needs to be done while in the midst of
action and adapts his or her action to fit changed situations or circumstances—without thinking
about making an adjustment. The merging of tacit knowledge and prior experience allows a
professional to cope with troublesome or divergent situations without having to stop and think
about what to do next. Although Schön introduced the term, he argues against its use because
he perceives that reflection-in-action is a “contradiction in terms” (p. 278). He believes that
thinking-in-action can sometimes impede or diminish performance by professional musicians,
artists, or athletes when they begin thinking too much about what they do. Nonetheless, he
asserts that professional knowledge requires reflective inquiry.

Reflection-on-action is a second type of professional thinking found in the literature. It occurs

after a professional has accomplished something and is deliberately analyzing the resulting
actions, thoughts, or products of her or his behavior or performance. Although Schön (1983)
used the phrase “reflection on action” (p. 276) to differentiate between thinking about

Adopted 9/12/06 14
performance afterwards from thinking about performance contemporaneously, he does not
provide a precise definition for it.

A third type of reflection has begun to appear in educational literature: reflection-to-action or

reflection-for-action (Butler, 1996; Killion & Todnem, 1991; Webb, 1995). Perceived as an
output from reflection-on-action, it occurs when a professional envisions “future ways of
thinking or behaving that are likely to produce desirable results” (York-Barr, Sommers, Ghere,
& Montie, 2001, p. 51). Although Schön (1983) did not define this third type of reflection, he
cautioned about its importance: “Professionally designed solutions to public problems have had
unanticipated consequences, sometimes worse than the problems they were designed to solve”
(p. 4).

The ability to think in action about one’s practice, think retrospectively about one’s action, and
think about future action is known collectively as reflective practice, one hallmark of a
professional. Reflection is described in literature from the fields of medicine (Horton, 1998),
urban affairs (Swindell, 2000), social work (Mattison, 2000), and business (Clarke, 1998). The
appearance of reflection in professional literature outside education underscores the broad
applicability of the concept as well as its essential contribution to the ways in which
professionals work. Hence, we perceive that reflective thinking and intelligent action—
collectively called professional reflection—is an identifiable characteristic of highly skilled,
creative, and competent educators. We strive to model this professional activity in our work as
university faculty, and we seek to produce graduates of our programs who likewise engage in
this important activity.

Reflection is a dynamic process in which professional educators use multiple sources of

knowledge to shape actions that lead to accomplishing specific outcomes (Hart, 1990; Schön,
1987). For example, reflective practice means that decisions are well informed by experience
and knowledge, actions are carefully considered in terms of their outcomes, and subsequent
decisions are refined by further reflection. Emphasizing reflection is appropriate for novice
candidates in initial preparation programs and veteran professional educators in advanced
programs. Requiring candidates to think carefully about how to apply new knowledge and
analyze first professional experiences helps them begin developing tacit knowledge and the
habit of professional reflection. Veteran educators refine and expand their expertise through the
same reflective-thinking processes.

Recent research has validated that professional reflection by teachers instills greater efficacy
(Kruse, 1997), improves collegiality and professional growth (Bell & Gilbert, 1994), engenders
lasting and positive effects on instructional quality (Freese, 1999), and generates solutions to
classroom problems (Pugach & Johnson, 1990). Similar findings are evident in research
literature about administration and leadership (Argyris & Schön, 1990; Brower & Balch, 2005;
Osterman & Kottkamp, 1993; Sergiovanni, 1992; Short & Rinehart, 1993), health and wellness
(Glanz, Lewis, & Rimer, 2002; Mechikoff & Estes, 2006; O’Rouke, 1989; Poser, 2005; Schön,
1987; Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000; Wuest & Lombardo, 1994), and special education (Ferry
& Ross-Gordon, 1998; Pugach & Johnson, 1990; Udvari-Solner, 1996).

Adopted 9/12/06 15
Educator preparation programs at UK address a wide variety of professional roles (e.g.,
teacher, administrator, counselor, coach, evaluator). Because reflection connotes a high level of
competence and professionalism, it was the foundation for the unit’s previous conceptual
framework, Preparing Professional Educators as Reflective Decision Makers. Reflection has
been incorporated in our mission and vision, our shared professional commitments, the
knowledge bases we use in our individual and collective work, and the outcomes we expect
from graduates who have completed our degree and certification programs. Finally, reflection
is an element in our current conceptual framework, Research and Reflection for Learning and
Leading, because professional educator standards emphasize its importance. The various
standards and corresponding indicators and competencies, issued by government and
professional groups, clearly indicate that thoughtful, well-informed professionals who engage
in regular reflective practice are capable of modeling the intent of standards. The broad
applicability of professional reflection supports its utility as an element of our conceptual
framework.

Research and Reflection for Learning and Leading

To state that learning is part of the conceptual framework for a professional education unit
seems a statement of the obvious. We selected learning as one of the four major components of
our conceptual framework to underscore our commitment to the many facets of learning and to
highlight the many ways in which programs within our unit conceptualize, promote, and
accomplish learning. Goals II, III, IV and V in the College of Education Strategic Plan pertain
to educational growth and learning.

As a unit, we do not share a single theoretical view of learning. Individuals associated with our
unit conceptualize learning from a wide range of theoretical perspectives. Our viewpoints are
consistent with a recent depiction of views on cognition and learning among North American
and European scholars as falling within three perspectives: behaviorist/empiricist,
cognitive/rationalist, and situative/pragmatist-sociohistoric (Greeno, Collins, & Resnick,
2004). We believe that our diversity of thought strengthens our unit and the experiences we
provide our candidates. Our candidates, particularly our graduate level candidates, bring
additional perspectives on learning theory and enrich the discourse and experiences within our
programs.

We promote learning among our candidates, the faculty, and the present and future students of
our candidates. Our commitment is to provide candidates with high quality learning
experiences that prepare them to meet and exceed institutional, state, and professional
standards. Through this emphasis on professionalism, our candidates are prepared for the
educational, political, social, and economic realities of the workplace. We strive to convey to
our candidates that lifelong learning is essential for being an effective educator, and we realize
that we must exemplify that principle in our own professional attitudes, behaviors, and
practice.

Our faculty and administrators demonstrate a commitment to our own professional

development through a considerable fiscal investment in travel to conferences and high rates of
participation as active members and leaders of professional organizations. In addition, we

Adopted 9/12/06 16
participate in campus-based activities that enhance our knowledge about pedagogical and
technical advancements that we apply to our teaching and research.

The ultimate aim of our teaching and that of our candidates is to have a positive impact on the
learning of present and future students and clients of graduates of our programs. In Kentucky,
public schools are held to the legal requirements specified in the Kentucky Education Reform
Act of 1990. Included in the legislation is a belief statement that all children can learn and most
at high levels. Our graduates are well prepared for the current climate of accountability in
schools and agencies.

Finally, we realize that “teaching” means to cause learning, and we are only effective in our
work if learning results from our efforts. Therefore, we are committed to constantly learning
about the effectiveness of our efforts through evidence we collect in the preparation programs.
We use a wide range of assessments including candidates’ evaluations of their experiences,
peer evaluations of our teaching, follow-up surveys of our graduates and their employers,
candidates’ performances on standardized assessments, and data-based projects implemented
in P-12 classrooms and other settings. We use this evidence to inform decisions about
improving our courses and our programs.
Our comprehensive view of learning links to the other three key parts of our conceptual
framework: research, reflection, and leading.

Research and Reflection for Learning and Leading

The theme, Research and Reflection for Learning and Leading, is relevant to current
educational environments, as graduates from the University of Kentucky must be prepared to
teach and lead in schools and other settings that are held to accountability policies from state
and national levels. In this age of governing agencies placing a priority on policies of high
stakes accountability, it is necessary that unit faculty “attract more students who are the ‘best
and brightest’ into careers in teaching” (Goal II) and that these students be prepared for
“leadership in the knowledge economy and global society” (Goal II), “embrace and nurture
diversity” (Goal IV), and work to “elevate the quality of life for Kentuckians” (Goal V). Not
only do faculty members have a responsibility to prepare educators to teach and lead, they also
are leaders in developing programs and research about those programs that prepare educators
to be successful in meeting state and national reform agendas.

Changing ideas about leadership. In the past, district and school leadership occurred
through roles such as principals, superintendents, or department chairs that had the positional
authority to direct instructional activities. However, with the advent of national and state
reform efforts, the idea of leading changed to include the development of distributive
leadership (Pounder, Ogawa, & Adams, 1995), teacher leadership (Murphy, 2005), and
professional learning communities (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005) in which teachers and
positional leaders work together to enhance student-learning activities. These ideas are
captured in a leadership definition provided by Rost (1991): “Leadership is an influence
relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual
purposes” (p. 102). Understandably, leaders tend to be ambitious, “but their ambition is first

Adopted 9/12/06 17
and foremost for the institution, not themselves” (Collins, 2001, p. 21), which is a needed
attribute for an effective influence relationship between leaders and followers.

Even though there is an emphasis on teacher leadership linked with positional leadership,
defining teacher leadership is as complex as defining leadership in general. In a review of the
literature, Murphy (2005) identified 13 definitions that outline teacher leadership. The major
themes found in these 13 definitions include ideas about change, student achievement,
continued growth, sharing instructional strategies, and teachers working together (Murphy, pp.
12-14). Schmoker (2005) contributed to the idea of teachers working together by arguing that
teachers need “autonomy and responsibility for results” and they also need time “to share their
collective and complementary skills and abilities toward better results” (p. 146), while
Blankstein (2004) argued for building capacity for all educators.

As leaders and followers work together to improve student learning, they need to realize that
schools today have diverse student populations, which presents unique challenges of social
differences to improve student learning (Blankstein, 2004; Institute for Educational Leadership
[IEL], 2005). IEL released a 2005 report, Preparing and Supporting Diverse, Culturally
Competent Leaders: Practice and Policy Considerations, describing key knowledge, skills and
attributes for leadership. This report listed the following five themes for policymakers and
practitioners:
 Educational leaders must be culturally competent to be fully effective.
 Culturally competent leaders work to understand their own biases as well as patterns of
discrimination. They have the skills to mitigate the attendant negative effects on student
achievement and the personal courage and commitment to persist.
 Much of what culturally competent leaders must know and be able to do is learned in
relationships with families and communities.
 Culturally competent leadership develops over time and needs to be supported from
preparation through practice. Creating collaborative frameworks and structures can be
useful.
 State and local policies need to build a sense of urgency about preparing culturally
competent leaders.
The above themes have implications for the preparation of educators regardless of the role they
have in a school setting.

Ideas about leadership are emerging due to the reform initiatives at the state and national levels
and diverse student populations. Policy makers, researchers, and practitioners recognize that
leadership can no longer reside in the few that govern to successfully implement the mandates
within No Child Left Behind Act and the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990. Effective
leaders today develop a culture in which all educators work together to enhance student
learning.

Unit faculty members realize that research, reflection, learning, and leading are interrelated
concepts that address the issues surrounding student learning. Faculty members engage in
preparing educators who will become effective leaders in the broadest sense of the word – by
working collaboratively to grow professionally and to improve student learning activities.

Adopted 9/12/06 18
Shared Vision

The conceptual framework for the professional education unit at the University of Kentucky
reflects the shared vision of various stakeholders and is an expansion of the framework
originally developed for the unit in 1992 and reaffirmed by the faculty in 1998. The current
framework was created by the Conceptual Framework Committee and illustrates the unit’s
desire for continuous improvement.

This is an evolving document that will continue to be refined over time as we gather input from
program faculty and administrators in the professional education unit. Additionally, focus
groups with faculty from other campus units and with P-12 educators are planned for the 2006-
2007 academic year to elicit further feedback.

The conceptual framework guides our programs and is represented in many different
documents, including course syllabi, newsletters, websites, and handbooks. Individual program
faculties and committees representing the six NCATE standards are using the conceptual
framework to guide their analyses of candidate performance and unit and program operations.

Coherence

The system for accomplishing coherence throughout educator preparation programs at the
University of Kentucky is dynamic and ongoing. As we write this conceptual framework
document, our unit is working to expand and improve our conceptual framework so that it
includes important themes that will guide development, implementation, and improvement of
our programs. Previously our conceptual framework emphasized reflective decision making,
and we successfully accomplished coherence of our programs around this important concept.
Within the past few months, faculty have come to consensus on maintaining attention to
reflection while expanding our framework to include research, learning, and leading. Interest
in expanding our conceptual framework came from extensive discussions in which faculty
determined the need for an updated conceptual framework that more completely describes
what our programs are and what we hope they can become.

At this time of transition for our unit, coherence with our new conceptual framework is a goal
rather than an accomplishment. UK educator preparation programs are at various stages in the
degree to which all four elements of our new conceptual framework are infused within
curricula, instruction, field experiences, clinical practice, and assessments. Members of our
program faculties will be assessing the status of program elements and determining to what
extent each element of the new conceptual framework is already in place and what
modifications or additions would lead to appropriate program improvements. As described in
the previous section, we have a plan for communicating our new conceptual framework so that
individuals involved with our educator preparation programs at any point will see the
coherence among programs’ components and the four elements of our framework, Research
and Reflection for Learning and Leading.

We expect that at the time of our site visit in fall of 2007, reviewers will detect results of our
efforts to work toward coherence with our new conceptual framework during interactions with

Adopted 9/12/06 19
faculty, administrators, candidates, and members of our community. As we carry out plans
associated with our new conceptual framework, coherence should be obvious in documents
posted on our website and available in our evidence room. We also expect that our work to
accomplish coherence will continue long after our upcoming NCATE/EPSB review concludes.
The expectation for coherence is not only an important standard on which we are evaluated for
accreditation, but it is a standard we hold for ourselves. Despite the wide variety of programs,
philosophies, and professional roles within our community of educators, we are in agreement
that the activities of learning, leading, reflecting, and researching are central to our work and
what we hope to accomplish.

Professional Commitments and Dispositions

Candidates must demonstrate specific functional skills and dispositions throughout their
respective preparation programs. These skills and dispositions, accompanied with the
indicators for each, are depicted in Table 2.

Table 2: Functional Skills and Dispositions Expected of Candidates

Functional Skill and Disposition 1: Candidates communicate appropriately and
effectively.
Communicates orally in formal presentations
Communicates with individuals in small groups in informal settings
Uses nonverbal communication skills
Communicates in writing (reports, essays, letters, memos, emails)
Functional Skill and Disposition 2: Candidates demonstrate constructive attitudes.
Demonstrates knowledge and command of socio-cultural variables in education
Demonstrates constructive attitudes toward children, youth, parents, and the
community
Demonstrates awareness and acceptance of diversity in educational settings
Functional Skill and Disposition 3: Candidates demonstrate ability to conceptualize
key subject matter ideas and relationships.
Correctly states key subject matter ideas
Explains key subject matter ideas
Tailors key subject matter ideas to diverse populations
Addresses misconceptions in key subject matter ideas
Identifies real life examples to enhance student learning
Functional Skill and Disposition 4: Candidates interact appropriately and effectively
with diverse groups of colleagues, administrators, students, and parents in educational
settings.
Demonstrates acceptable educator behavior in diverse educational settings
Demonstrates adaptability in reflecting on self in relation to diverse groups
Functional Skill and Disposition 5: Candidates demonstrate a commitment to
professional ethics and behavior.
Demonstrates understanding of the Kentucky School Personnel Code of Ethics
Complies with all legal requirements required of educators in a knowledgeable and
timely manner
Demonstrates understanding of ethical issues related to own professional certification

Adopted 9/12/06 20
 area

Candidates must also demonstrate program-specific dispositions as identified in standards of

specialized professional organizations.

Commitment to Diversity

Service to the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world are fundamental values in the vision
and mission of UK’s professional education unit. The magnitude of this outreach means that
faculty and candidates must recognize and respect differences among individuals and
organizations—including differences that are not obvious at first glance. Because faculty,
candidates, and graduates of this unit are catalysts for intellectual, social, and cultural
development in places well beyond the borders of the UK campus, their actions and words
must embody an understanding of and appreciation for diversity.

The University of Kentucky is committed to making diversity central to university policies,

decisions, and practices to strengthen diversity within the Commonwealth. Efforts by a broad-
based task force appointed by UK President Todd defined diversity as:
embracing difference or promoting increased knowledge regarding race/ethnicity,
gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, veteran affairs, and thought within an
inclusive community. This definition of diversity values an inclusive institutional
culture, academic programs, and co-curricular activities that prepare students for active,
global citizenship. This commitment further allows for an educational process that
fosters growth among all members of the academic community by including a wide
array of talents, and recognizing the human differences are organizational strengths
(University-Wide Comprehensive Diversity Plan Task Force Report, April 2005, p. 6).
Because the desired outcome is excellence in education, the University of Kentucky “does not
practice discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or
disability” (p. 6).

The professional education unit supports the university-wide definition of diversity and
enhances it through an expanded interpretation. This broader conceptualization of diversity
also includes learning exceptionalities, native languages, socioeconomic status, and life
experiences often created by residing in unique geographical regions such as Appalachia.
Curricula within the unit, field experiences, and membership of the unit’s faculty and student
body reflect a commitment to diversity.

Other examples of the unit’s commitment to diversity include its active Task Force on
Inclusiveness, the creation of the Office of Equity and Diversity staffed by a full-time director,
the establishment and coordination of diversity scholarships and loan-forgiveness programs
such as the Kentucky Minority Educator Recruitment and Retention Scholarship and the
Commonwealth Incentive Award, the Lyman T. Johnson Fellowship Program, the Robinson
Scholars Program, and recruitment programs such as the annual summer residential camp
designed for high school students who are interested in pursuing teaching careers. Because the
goal of the unit is to prepare educational practitioners, leaders and researchers who are able to
ensure learning for all children and youth in the Commonwealth, faculty must be committed to

Adopted 9/12/06 21
seeking ways to serve individuals living and working in urban, suburban, and rural
communities.

Commitment to Technology

Candidates, faculty, and administrators in the professional education unit model the theme,
Research and Reflection for Learning and Leading, when using technology as a personal and
professional tool. Initial teacher preparation programs are guided by national standards and the
New Teacher Standards adopted by the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board.
Standard IX, Demonstrates Implementation of Technology, specifically applies to using
technology to support instruction. Candidates receiving initial certification in the
Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education (IECE) Birth to Primary Program are required to
meet the Kentucky IECE New Teacher Standard IX which also addresses technology.

Advanced teacher preparation programs are also guided by national standards and the state’s
Experienced Teacher Standards. Experienced Teacher Standard X focuses on integrating
technology in instruction and assessment. Candidates in educational leadership must meet the
national Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA), which were adopted by the
EPSB for educational leadership programs in Kentucky. In addition to state standards,
candidates are assessed on their ability to demonstrate unit technology standards at three key
transition points in their programs: admission, retention, and exit.

Candidates are required to use technology for class assignments, lesson plan preparation, class
presentations, record keeping, and data analysis. Candidates must also successfully complete
coursework that focuses on using technology such as EDC 317 Introduction to Instructional
Media, EDS 514 Instructional Technology in Special Education, and EDS 517 Assistive
Technology in Special Education.

Candidates and faculty communicate through electronic mail, use list-serves for professional
interactions, access web sites and electronic databases, and use electronic literature for research
projects. Instructors require candidates to submit work prepared with software such as
Microsoft Word, Excel, and Power Point. Candidates also videotape their teaching experiences
for reflection, assessment, and critique. Further, candidates complete assignments using
technology in smart classrooms and computer laboratories located in Dickey Hall, Taylor
Education Building, and the Seaton Center.

The unit’s commitment to technology is also demonstrated through the base-budget funding of
a fully staffed Instructional Technology Center, which is responsible for updating and
maintaining technology resources in offices, computer laboratories, and classrooms. In
addition, since the last accreditation visit, the unit has funded smart classroom technology in all
classrooms and conference rooms in the college.

Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Standards

Candidate proficiencies are aligned with institutional, state, and national standards. Evidence
of this alignment can be found in program review documents, course syllabi, and candidate

Adopted 9/12/06 22
assessments. All educator preparation programs are aligned with institutional standards, which
include the elements of the conceptual framework theme, the unit functional skills and
dispositions, and the unit technology standards. In addition, initial teacher certification
programs are aligned with the Kentucky New Teacher Standards, with the exception of the
interdisciplinary early childhood education program, which is aligned with the state’s New
Teacher Standards for Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education Birth through Primary.
Likewise, advanced teacher certification programs in the unit are aligned with the Kentucky
Experienced Teacher Standards. The Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board has
also adopted the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards and the
Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA) to guide educational leadership
programs in the Commonwealth. These institutional and state standards are identified more
specifically in Tables 3 through 8.

Institutional standards that candidates must demonstrate throughout their programs include the
four elements of the conceptual framework, research, reflection, learning, and leading; the
Unit Functional Skills and Dispositions; and the Unit Technology Standards.

Table 3: Institutional Standards for All Professional Educator Programs

Elements of the Unit Conceptual Framework
1. Research
2. Reflection
3. Learning
4. Leading
Functional Skills and Dispositions
1. Candidates communicate appropriately and effectively.
2. Candidates demonstrate constructive attitudes.
3. Candidates demonstrate ability to conceptualize key subject matter ideas and
relationships.
4. Candidates interact appropriately and effectively with diverse groups of colleagues,
administrators, students, and parents in educational settings.
5. Candidates demonstrate a commitment to professional ethics and behavior.
Unit Technology Standards
1. Candidates integrate media and technology into instruction.
2. Candidates utilize multiple technology applications to support student learning.
3. Candidates select appropriate technology to enhance instruction.
4. Candidates integrate student use of technology into instruction.
5. Candidates address special learning needs through technology.
6. Candidates promote ethical and legal use of technology disciplines.

In addition to institutional standards, candidates must demonstrate that they meet state
standards that are pertinent to their programs. Initial certification programs in Kentucky are
required to document how their candidates meet the nine New Teacher Standards. These
standards were originally adopted by the Education Professional Standards Board in June 1993
and revised in November 1994 and May 1999. See Table 4 for the standards. Following
adoption of the standards in 1993, professional educator programs at UK began integrating

Adopted 9/12/06 23
them into their respective curricula and experiences, and the standards are now an integral part
of each initial preparation program.

Table 4: Kentucky New Teacher Standards for Preparation and Certification

Standard 1: Designs and Plans Instruction. The teacher designs/plans instruction and
learning climates that develop student abilities to use communication skills, apply core
concepts, become self-sufficient individuals, become responsible team members, think
and solve problems, and integrate knowledge.
Standard 2: Creates and Maintains Learning Climates. The teacher creates a learning
climate that supports the development of student abilities to use communication skills,
apply core contents, become self-sufficient individuals, become responsible team
members, think and solve problems, and integrate knowledge.
Standard 3: Implements and Manages Instruction. The teacher
introduces/implements/manages instruction that develops student abilities to use
communication skills, apply core contents, become self-sufficient individuals, become
responsible team members, think and solve problems, and integrate knowledge.
Standard 4: Assesses and Communicates Learning Results. The teacher assesses
learning and communicates results to students and others with respect to student abilities
to use communication skills, apply core concepts, become self-sufficient individuals,
become responsible team members, think and solve problems, and integrate knowledge.
Standard 5: Reflects and Evaluates Teaching and Learning. The teacher reflects on
and evaluates specific teaching/learning situations and/or programs.
Standard 6: Collaborates with Colleagues, Parents, and Others. The teacher
collaborates with colleagues, parents, and other agencies to design, implement, and
support learning programs that develop student abilities to use communication skills,
apply core concepts, become self-sufficient individuals, become responsible team
members, think and solve problems, and integrate knowledge.
Standard 7: Engages in Professional Development. The teacher evaluates his/her
overall performance with respect to modeling and teaching Kentucky’s learning goals,
refines the skills and processes necessary, and implements a professional development
plan.
Standard 8: Knowledge of Content. The teacher demonstrates a current and sufficient
academic knowledge of certified content areas to develop student knowledge and
performance in those areas.
Standard 9: Demonstrates Implementation of Technology. The teacher uses
technology to support instruction; access and manipulate data; enhance professional
growth and productivity; communicate and collaborate with colleagues, parents, and the
community; and conduct research.

Candidates in initial certification programs in early childhood education are required to meet
the Kentucky New Teacher Standards for Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education (IECE)
Birth to Primary. These standards, adopted by the EPSB in January 1995 and revised in March
2003, identify what novice IECE teachers are required to know and be able to do. Thus, they
guide the curriculum and field and clinical experiences for candidates in the IECE program at
the University of Kentucky. The nine New Teacher Standards for Interdisciplinary Early
Childhood Education Birth to Primary are described in Table 5.

Adopted 9/12/06 24
 Table 5: Kentucky New Teacher Standards for Interdisciplinary Early Childhood
Education (IECE) Birth to Primary
Standard 1: Designs and Plans Instruction. The Interdisciplinary Early Childhood
Education (IECE) educator designs and plans experiences and instruction that support the
development and learning of infants, toddlers, preschool, and kindergarten children,
including those with disabilities.
Standard 2: Creates and Maintains Environments. The IECE educator creates and
maintains learning environments in a variety of settings that support the development and
learning of infants, toddlers, preschool, and kindergarten children, including those with
disabilities.
Standard 3: Implements Instruction. The IECE educator introduces, implements, and
facilitates experiences and instruction that support development and learning for infants,
toddlers, preschool, and kindergarten children, including those with disabilities.
Standard 4: Assesses and Communicates Learning Results. The IECE educator, in
collaboration with others, assesses the development and ongoing learning of infants,
toddlers, preschool, and kindergarten children, including those with disabilities, and
communicates the results with partners, including families.
Standard 5: Reflects and Evaluates Professional Practices. The IECE educator
reflects on and evaluates professional practices that support the development and learning
of infants, toddlers, preschool, and kindergarten children, including those with
disabilities.
Standard 6: Collaborates with Colleagues, Families, and Others. The IECE educator
collaborates and consults with team members including colleagues, families, primary
caregivers, agency personnel, and other service personnel to design and implement
experiences and instruction that support the development and learning of infants,
toddlers, preschool, and kindergarten children, including those with disabilities.
Standard 7: Engages in Professional Development. The IECE educator engages in
self-evaluation of professional practices and implements a professional development plan
to improve his/her performance.
Standard 8: Supports Families. The IECE educator supports families through family-
centered services that promote independence and self-determination.
Standard 9: Demonstrates Implementation of Technology. The IECE educator uses
technology to support instruction; access and manipulate data; enhance professional
growth and productivity; communicate and collaborate with colleagues, families, and
community agencies; and conduct research.

Candidates in advanced teacher preparation programs must demonstrate that they are able to
meet the ten Kentucky Experienced Teacher Standards, which the EPSB adopted in June 1994
and revised in May 1999. The Experienced Teacher Standards appear in Table 6.

Table 6: Kentucky Experienced Teacher Standards for Preparation and Certification

Standard 1: Demonstrates Professional Leadership. The teacher provides
professional leadership within the school, community, and education profession to
improve student learning and well-being.
Standard 2: Demonstrates Knowledge of Content. The teacher demonstrates content

Adopted 9/12/06 25
knowledge within own discipline(s) and in application(s) to other disciplines.
Standard 3: Designs and Plans Instruction. The teacher designs/plans instruction that
develops student abilities to use communication skills, apply core concepts, become self-
sufficient individuals, become responsible team members, think and solve problems, and
integrate knowledge.
Standard 4: Creates and Maintains Learning Climates. The teacher creates a learning
climate that supports the development of student abilities to use communication skills,
apply core contents, become self-sufficient individuals, become responsible team
members, think and solve problems, and integrate knowledge.
Standard 5: Implements and Manages Instruction. The teacher
introduces/implements/manages instruction that develops student abilities to use
communication skills, apply core contents, become self-sufficient individuals, become
responsible team members, think and solve problems, and integrate knowledge.
Standard 6: Assesses and Communicates Learning Results. The teacher assesses
learning and communicates results to students and others with respect to student abilities
to use communication skills, apply core concepts, become self-sufficient individuals,
become responsible team members, think and solve problems, and integrate knowledge.
Standard 7: Reflects and Evaluates Teaching and Learning. The teacher reflects on
and evaluates teaching and learning.
Standard 8: Collaborates with Colleagues, Parents, and Others. The teacher
collaborates with colleagues, parents, and other agencies to design, implement, and
support learning programs that develop student abilities to use communication skills,
apply core concepts, become self-sufficient individuals, become responsible team
members, think and solve problems, and integrate knowledge.
Standard 9: Engages in Professional Development. The teacher evaluates own overall
performance in relation to Kentucky’s learner goals and implements a professional
development plan.
Standard 10: Demonstrates Implementation of Technology. The teacher uses
technology to support instruction; access and manipulate data; enhance professional
growth and productivity; communicate and collaborate with colleagues, parents, and the
community; and conduct research.

Candidates in educational leadership programs at the University of Kentucky are required to

document their proficiency on each of the six Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
(ISLLC) Standards for School Leaders, which were adopted by the EPSB in November 1998 as
the state standards for instructional leaders. In addition, candidates must also demonstrate their
ability to meet the six Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA), which the
EPSB adopted in August 2003 as the state standards for all educational leadership programs.
The ISLLC standards are described in Table 7, and the TSSA are identified in Table 8.

Table 7: Kentucky-Adopted Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)

Standards for School Leaders
Standard 1: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success
of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and
stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.
Standard 2: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success

Adopted 9/12/06 26
of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional
program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
Standard 3: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success
of all students by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for
a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
Standard 4: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success
of all students by collaborating with families and community members, responding to
diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
Standard 5: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success
of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.
Standard 6: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success
of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political,
social, economic, legal, and cultural context.

Table 8: Kentucky-Adopted Technology Standards for School Administrators

Standard I: Leadership and Vision. Educational leaders inspire a shared vision for
comprehensive integration of technology and foster an environment and culture
conducive to the realization of that vision.
Standard II: Learning and Teaching. Educational leaders ensure that curricular
design, instructional strategies, and learning environments integrate appropriate
technologies to maximize learning and teaching.
Standard III: Productivity and Professional Practice. Educational leaders apply
technology to enhance their professional practice and to increase their own productivity
and that of others.
Standard IV: Support, Management, and Operations. Educational leaders ensure the
integration of technology to support productive systems for learning and administration.
Standard V: Assessment and Evaluation. Educational leaders use technology to plan
and implement comprehensive systems of effective assessment and evaluation.
Standard VI: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues
Educational leaders understand the social, legal, and ethical issues related to technology
and model responsible decision-making related to these issues.

In addition to alignment with institutional and state standards, programs are further aligned
with national standards of the respective specialized professional associations (SPAs) that are
endorsed by NCATE. Additionally, NCATE recognizes those programs that have been
accredited by their respective accrediting agencies. In some disciplines and/or program levels,
NCATE has not endorsed standards. In these instances, program faculties have identified
standards with which to align their programs. Table 9 contains a complete list of initial and
advanced programs in the unit along with a description of the pertinent institutional, state, and
national standards associated with that program area.

Assessment of Candidate Performance

Candidate performance is continuously assessed throughout professional education programs

in the unit. Assessment of candidate proficiencies occurs at course and program levels with

Adopted 9/12/06 27
individual faculty members conducting course assessments and program faculties reviewing
candidate performance throughout programs. Aggregated data of candidate performance are
used to evaluate the effectiveness of unit operations in areas such as technology, diversity,
assessment, and working with students with special needs.

All professional education courses require candidates to demonstrate proficiencies aligned with
expectations for the specific courses. Sample assessments include lesson plans, unit plans,
observational reports, reflective narratives, action research projects, community-based projects,
classroom management plans, and student teaching/practicum/internship evaluations. Most
programs require candidates to complete portfolios or teacher work samples.

In addition to course-embedded assessments, candidates are assessed by their respective

program faculties at three key transition points in their programs: admission, retention, and
exit. At each point, candidates are assessed on their progress toward meeting state teacher
performance standards and institutional standards, which include the functional skills and
dispositions expected of educators and the unit technology standards. Program faculties,
comprised of education faculty, university faculty in arts and sciences and other related areas,
and P-12 practitioners, meet regularly to review applicants for admission, admit candidates to
programs, and review candidate progress throughout their programs. Each faculty has
identified specific multiple criteria for candidates to demonstrate at program admission,
retention, and exit. A complete description of all program criteria is beyond the scope of this
document; however, an example for the Early Elementary Education Program is contained in
Table 10. Criteria for other programs are described on the respective program web pages and in
program materials in the Office of Academic Services and Teacher Certification.

The results of aggregated data of candidate performance help inform program and unit
improvement efforts. For example, at the program level, program faculties review aggregated
data from the Continuous Assessment Reports, which include ratings of candidate performance
on the appropriate state standards sets, the unit functional skills and dispositions, and the unit
technology standards. In addition, program faculties review feedback from the state-
administered New Teacher Survey, which includes responses from student teachers and their
cooperating teachers and from first-year teachers and their resource teachers. These data are
then used as the basis for making improvements to the program. As an example, feedback
from these sources was used to make decisions during a recent review and revision of the Early
Elementary Education Program. In response to feedback that candidates needed more
preparation in the areas of assessment, technology, diversity, and working with students with
special needs, the Elementary Education Revision Committee identified these areas as key
strands throughout the program and specified how these strands are addressed in coursework,
field experiences, and clinical practice. In addition, a new course that focuses on working with
students with special needs was added to the program in response to feedback from these
multiple sources that candidates are less than well prepared in this area.

At the unit level, aggregated data across program areas are shared with various groups for the
purpose of improving programs across the unit and enhancing the effectiveness of unit
operations. These include:

Adopted 9/12/06 28
 the program faculty chairs group, which is comprised of program chairs of all
professional educator programs on campus, the director of academic services and
teacher certification, the director of field experiences and school collaboration, the
associate dean for academic and student services, and the associate dean for research
and graduate studies
 the Council of Chairs, which is comprised of the dean, the associate dean for academic
and student services, the associate dean for research and graduate studies, the chair of
the Faculty Council, and all department chairs in the College of Education
 the unit faculty, which is comprised of faculty in the College of Education and faculty
in affiliated professional educator programs located in other units on campus
Summary

In this document, we have attempted to describe how the conceptual framework theme,
Research and Reflection for Learning and Leading, guides the work of candidates and faculty
in the professional education unit at the University of Kentucky. We hope this work has made
the schools of Kentucky, and beyond, better places of learning for all children and youth.

Adopted 9/12/06 29
Table 9: Alignment of Educator Preparation Programs with Institutional, State, and National Standards

State National
Program Level Degree Institutional Standards* Standards Standards

Programs for Initial Teacher Preparation

Agriculture Initial Bachelors Conceptual Framework Kentucky New ****

Education (5-12) Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards
Technology Standards
Art Education (P-12) Initial Bachelors Conceptual Framework Kentucky New ****
Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards
Technology Standards
Business and Initial Masters Conceptual Framework Kentucky New ****
Marketing Education Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards
(5-12) Technology Standards
Early Elementary Initial Bachelors/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky New Association of
Education (P-5) Baccalaureate Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards Childhood Education
Technology Standards International
Family and Initial Bachelors Conceptual Framework Kentucky New American Association
Consumer Sciences Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards of Family and
Education (5-12) Technology Standards Consumer Sciences**
Health Promotion Initial Bachelors Conceptual Framework Kentucky New American Alliance
(Health Education Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards for Health, Physical
Certification) (P-12) Technology Standards Education,
Recreation, and
Dance/American
Association for
Health Education
Interdisciplinary Initial Bachelors/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky New National Association

Adopted 9/12/06 30
Early Childhood Baccalaureate Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards for the Education of
Education (B-P) Technology Standards for Young Children
Interdisciplinary
Early Childhood
Education Birth to
Primary
Kinesiology (Physical Initial Bachelors Conceptual Framework Kentucky New
American Alliance
Education Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards for Health, Physical
Certification) (P-12) Technology Standards Education,
Recreation, and
Dance/National
Association for Sport
and Physical
Education
Middle School Initial Bachelors Conceptual Framework Kentucky New National Middle
Education (5-9) Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards School Association
Technology Standards
Music Education (P- Initial Bachelors Conceptual Framework Kentucky New National Association
12) Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards of Schools of
Technology Standards Music**
Secondary English Initial Masters Conceptual Framework Kentucky New National Council of
Education (8-12) Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards Teachers of English
Technology Standards
Secondary Initial Masters Conceptual Framework Kentucky New National Council of
Mathematics Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards Teachers of
Education (8-12) Technology Standards Mathematics
Secondary Science Initial Masters Conceptual Framework Kentucky New National Science
Education (8-12) Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards Teachers Association
Technology Standards
Secondary Social Initial Masters Conceptual Framework Kentucky New National Council for

Adopted 9/12/06 31
Studies (8-12) Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards the Social Studies
Technology Standards
Special Education: Initial Bachelors/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky New Council for
Learning and Baccalaureate Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards Exceptional Children
Behavior Disorders Technology Standards
(P-12)
Special Education: Initial Bachelors/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky New Council for
Moderate and Severe Baccalaureate Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards Exceptional Children
Disabilities (P-12) Technology Standards
World Languages Initial Master of Arts Conceptual Framework Kentucky New American Council on
(Foreign Language in Teaching Elements; FSD; Unit Teacher Standards the Teaching of
Certification Options Technology Standards Foreign Languages
in French, German,
Latin, Spanish,
Russian) (P-12)

Programs for Advanced Preparation of Teachers and Other School Personnel

Agriculture Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky ****

Education (5-12) Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced
Technology Standards Teacher Standards
Art Education (P-12) Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky ****
Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced
Technology Standards Teacher Standards
Communication Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky American
Disorders (P-12) Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Speech/Hearing/Language
Technology Standards Teacher Standards Association**
Early Elementary Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky ****

Adopted 9/12/06 32
Education (P-5) Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced
Technology Standards Teacher Standards
Family and Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky American Association of
Consumer Sciences Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Family and Consumer
Education (5-12) Technology Standards Teacher Standards Sciences**
Health Promotion Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky National Commission for
(Health Education Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Health Education
Certification) (P-12) Technology Standards Teacher Standards Credentialing****
Instructional Advanced Post-Masters Conceptual Framework Interstate School Interstate School Leaders
Leadership: Elements; FSD; Unit Leaders Licensure Licensure Consortium***
Instructional Technology Standards Consortium
Supervisor (ISLLC);
Technology
Standards for
School
Administrators
(TSSA)
Instructional Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework ISLLC; TSSA Interstate School Leaders
Leadership: Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Licensure Consortium***
Principal, All Grades Technology Standards
Instructional Advanced Post-Masters Conceptual Framework ISLLC; TSSA Interstate School Leaders
Leadership: Elements; FSD; Unit Licensure Consortium***
Superintendent Technology Standards
Instructional Systems Advanced Masters Conceptual Framework Kentucky Association for Education
Design (Rank II with Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Communications and
Masters) Technology Standards Teacher Standards Technology; International
Society for Technology in
Education; International
Technology Education
Association

Adopted 9/12/06 33
Instructional Systems Advanced Post-Masters Conceptual Framework Kentucky Association for Education
Design (Rank I Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Communications and
without ISD Masters) Technology Standards Teacher Standards Technology; International
Society for Technology in
Education; International
Technology Education
Association
Instructional Systems Advanced Post-Masters Conceptual Framework Kentucky Association for Education
Design (Rank I with Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Communications and
ISD Masters) Technology Standards Teacher Standards Technology; International
Society for Technology in
Education; International
Technology Education
Association
Kinesiology Advanced Masters Conceptual Framework Kentucky American Alliance for
(Physical Education Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Health, Physical
Certification) (P-12) Technology Standards Teacher Standards Education, Recreation,
and Dance/National
Association for Sport and
Physical Education
Middle School Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky National Middle School
Education Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Association
Technology Standards Teacher Standards
Music Education Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky National Association of
Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Schools of Music**
Technology Standards Teacher Standards
School Media Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky American Library
Librarian Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Association**
Technology Standards Teacher Standards
School Psychology Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky National Association of
Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced School

Adopted 9/12/06 34
 Technology Standards Teacher Standards Psychologists/American
Psychological
Association**
School Social Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky Council on Social Work
Worker Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Education**
Technology Standards Teacher Standards
Secondary Education Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky ****
(9-12) Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced
Technology Standards Teacher Standards
Special Education: Advanced Conceptual Framework Kentucky Council for Exceptional
Director of Special Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Children
Education Technology Standards Teacher Standards
Special Education: Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky Council for Exceptional
Learning and Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Children
Behavior Disorders Technology Standards Teacher Standards
(P-12)
Special Education: Advanced Masters/Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky Council for Exceptional
Moderate and Severe Masters Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Children
Disabilities (P-12) Technology Standards Teacher Standards
Computer Science Advanced Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky Association for Education
Endorsement (P-12) Baccalaureate Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Communications and
Technology Standards Teacher Standards Technology; International
Society for Technology in
Education; International
Technology Education
Association
English as a Second Advanced Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky
Language Baccalaureate Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced
Endorsement (P-12) Technology Standards Teacher Standards
Reading and Writing Advanced Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky International Reading

Adopted 9/12/06 35
Endorsement (P-12) Baccalaureate Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Association
Technology Standards Teacher Standards
School Media Advanced Post- Conceptual Framework Kentucky American Library
Librarian Baccalaureate Elements; FSD; Unit Experienced Association**
Endorsement (P-12) Technology Standards Teacher Standards

* Institutional standards include Conceptual Framework Elements (Research, Reflection, Learning, Leading); Functional Skills
and Dispositions (FSD); and Unit Technology Standards.
** NCATE recognizes accreditation by these accrediting bodies in lieu of NCATE review and accreditation.
*** NCATE/Kentucky partnership protocol specifies that educational leadership programs use national Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards rather than the standards of the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC).
**** NCATE has not recognized national standards for this program level.

Adopted 9/12/06 36
Table 10: Criteria for Program Admission, Retention, and Exit for Candidates in the
Early Elementary Education Program

Program Admission
Minimum overall undergraduate grade point average (GPA) of 2.5
Passing scores on one of the following basic skills test: 21 on ACT; 990 on SAT with
grade of B on college composition course; or PRAXIS I: 173 on Reading, 173 on
Mathematics, and 172 on Writing
Admissions portfolio
 An autobiography
 A list of experiences working with young children
 A list of community service activities
 A paper written for and graded in a course already completed to demonstrate
writing ability and content knowledge
Interview with program faculty members
On-demand writing task at time of interview
Completion of, or enrollment in, EDP 202
Completion of 30 clock hours of community service
Candidate self-assessment on New Teacher Standards, functional skills and dispositions,
and technology standards
Three references, including one from a university faculty member
Character and fitness review with signed statement indicating candidate has read and
understands the Kentucky Professional Code of Ethics
Signed statement indicating candidate has read and understands program requirements,
e.g., policies related to student teaching placements
Program Retention
Grade point average of 2.5 overall, in professional education courses, and in required
subject area courses
Completed all professional education courses except student teaching
Continued adherence to the Kentucky Professional Code of Ethics
Satisfactory progress toward meeting Kentucky New Teacher Standards as documented
in working portfolio
Satisfactory progress toward meeting Kentucky New Teacher Standards, functional skills
and dispositions, and unit technology standards (Continuous Assessment Ratings)
Program Exit
Grade point average of 2.5 overall, in professional education courses, and in required
subject area courses
Satisfactory completion of student teaching experience
Continued adherence to the Kentucky Professional Code of Ethics
Evidence through exit portfolio that all Kentucky New Teacher Standards are met
Demonstrated proficiency in all Kentucky New Teacher Standards, functional skills and
dispositions, and unit technology standards (Continuous Assessment Ratings)
References

Apple, M. W. (2000). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age (2nd

ed.). New York: Routledge.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1992). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1994).Teacher development as professional, personal, and social
development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 483-497.
Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student
achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press and HOPE
Foundation.
Brower, R. E., & Balch, B. V. (2005). Transformational leadership and decision making in
schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Butler, J. (1996). Professional development: Practice as text, reflection, and self as locus.
Australian Journal of Education, 40(30), 265-83.
Clarke, M. (1998). Can specialists be general manager? Development of paradoxical thinking
in middle managers. Journal of Management Development, 17, 191.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others don’t.
New York: HarperCollins.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (1999). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in
change. In P. Holman & T. Devane (Eds.), The change handbook: Group methods for
shaping the future (pp. 245-262). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: Heath.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005). On common ground: The power of professional
learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Erickson, F. & Gutierrez, K. (2002). Culture, rigor, and science in educational research.
Educational Researcher, 31(8), 21-24.
Falk, B., & Blumenreich, M. (2005). The power of questions: A guide to teacher and student
research. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ferry, N., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998). An inquiry into Schön’s epistemology of practice:
Exploring links between experience and reflective practice. Adult Education Quarterly,
48, 98.
Florio-Ruane, S. (2002). More light: An argument for complexity in studies of teaching and
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 205-215.
Freese, A. R. (1999). The role of reflection on preservice teachers’ development in the context
of a professional development school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 895-909.
Glanz, K., Lewis, F. M., & Rimer, B. K. (2002). Health behavior and health education (3rd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2004). Cognition and learning. In D. C.
Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Ed.) Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hammond, S. A. (1996). The thin book of appreciative inquiry (2nd ed.). Plano, TX: Thin
Book.
Hart, A. W. (1990). Effective administration through reflective practice. Education and Urban
Society, 22, 153.
Horton, R. (1998). The grammar of interpretive medicine. Canadian Medical Association
Journal, 159, 245.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2005). Preparing and supporting diverse, culturally
competent leaders: Practice and policy considerations. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved April 10 from http://www.iel.org/pubs/diverseleaders.pdf
Jarvis, P. (1998). The practitioner-researcher: Developing theory from practice. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Killion, J., & Todnem, G. (1991, March). Reflection-for-action: A process for personal
reflection. Educational Leadership, 48, 14-16.
Kruse, S. D. (1997). Reflective activity in practice: Vignettes of teachers’ deliberative work.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31, 46-60.
Mattison, M. (2000). Ethical decision making: The person in the process. Social Work, 45, 201.
Mechikoff, R. A., & Estes, S. (2006). A history and philosophy of sport and physical
education: From ancient civilizations to the modern world (4th ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.
Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2004). Advancing scientific research in education. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R.
(2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices.
Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137-148.
O'Rouke, T. (1989). Reflections on directions in health education: Implications for policy and
practice. Health Education, 28(6), 4-14.
Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: Professional
development to improve student learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Pounder, D. G., Ogawa, R. T., & Adams, E. A. (1995). Leadership as an organization-wide
phenomena: Its impact on school performance. Educational Administration Quarterly,
31(4), 564-588.
Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1990). Fostering the continued democratization of
consultation through action research. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13(3-
4), 240-245.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.
Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. (2005). No turning back: The ironclad case for professional learning
communities. In R. Dufour, R. Eaker, & R. Dufour (Eds.), On common ground: The
power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching
and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1993). Reflection as a means of developing expertise.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(4), 501-521.
Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical education with
powerweb (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action research: A handbook for practitioners (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swindell, D. (2000). Issue representation in neighborhood organizations: Questing for
democracy at the grassroots. Journal of Urban Affairs, 22, 123.
Udvari-Solner, A. (1996). Examining teacher thinking. Remedial and Special Education, 17,
245.
Webb, G. (1995). Reflective practice, staff development, and understanding. Studies in
Continuing Education, 17(1-2), 70-77.
Wuest, D. A., & Lombardo, B. (1994). Curriculum and instruction: The secondary school
physical education experience. New York: McGraw Hill.
York-Barr, J., Sommers, W. A., Ghere, G. S., & Montie, J. (2001). Reflective practice to
improve schools: An action guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.