AF White Paper 11-29-12 · A Scie Sci Asso The Th naly Assessing nce and Cha ence and ciation fo C ird Mile G Deve tic F Innovat Mathem rles R. C Mathem r Public o‐found roup &

A

Scie

SciAsso

The Th

AnalyAssessing

ence and

Chaience andociation fo

Cird Mile G

Deve

ytic Fg Innovat

d Mathem

arles R. Cd Mathemor Public Co‐foundGroup &

Janu

eloping t

Framtion and In

matics Tea

Coble, Comatics Teand Landder and PTeacher

uary 2012

the

mewQuality D

acher Pre

‐directoreacher Imd‐grant Uartner Preparat

2

work©

Design

eparation

r mperativeUniversitie

tion Analy

©

n

es

ytics

Page Background ....................................................................................................................... 3

Purpose of the Framework ................................................................................................ 5

Structure of the Framework .............................................................................................. 8

Underlying Assertions of the Framework .............................................................. 10 Framework Development ..................................................................................... 11 Usefulness of the Framework .............................................................................. 13 Next Steps ........................................................................................................... 16

Authors, Contributors and Advisory Committee .............................................................. 17

References....................................................................................................................... 19

Appendix: Progression of Input and Development, Notable Events ................................. 20

Table of Contents

APLU An

Context

The ecomathemassessmappearswith dreducatioEducatioperceivemath caccountaadministbetter simportanand attrperformareprepIn resporeport RUniversi2008.Thof STEMchancellcommittSMTI, mnation.enteringefforts wrenewscand deeducatioYorkCh“With almovedtthesameinsufficie

alytic Frame

t for Launc

onomic andatics are wentresults,under threamatic eduonal progreon, politicalednationalcurriculum,ability fortratorsandupport stunceofraisinract more twithstudearedtoteac

onse to thesRising Abovities(APLU)hespecificgM teachers pors of overted themsemaking it thBut APLUgacrowdedwere alreadcienceandmevelopment.ondeanwhoancellor, chll the reporthedial!”Toedisaggregentpowert

ework

ching the S

social impwell documeandevenleeat by the rucational adess in thel, and busimalady.Mahigher e

teacher peparentstodent learningteacher’stalented indents in thecchremainsa

se concernsve the Gat) launchedgoalofSMTIpreparedbyr 125 APLUlves and thhe largestmembers

dfield.Dozedy under wmathematic. NancyoisnowSthallengedherts and initiomLuce,CEationofeffotocreatesig

Science an

peratives toented in aegislation.Arapid globadvances inUnited Staness leadeanyhaveadexpectationerformance.focusoncring in scienssalariesindividuals. Vclassroommanissueofg

s, and to ththering StortheScienceIistomeasyAPLU instU institutioheir institusuch efforknew the

ensifnothuway to tracsteacherpZimpher,ateUniverser fellowAiatives overEOoftheNaortsacrossgnificant,su

Back

d Mathem

o improvenumber ofAtthisstagealization ofn other natates, particrs have offdvocatedfons for stuOthers hareatingthence and mnordertolVirtually allmattersaggreatconce

he recommerm, the AseandMatheurablyincretitutions.ons haveutions tort in theey wereundredsofansform orpreparationa formersityofNewPLUboardr the last 30ationalMatthecountrystainedene

kgroun

matics Teac

student acf reports, steinthe21sfinancial ations andcularly inffered a varrgreaterriudent achave emphasconditionsathematics.endgreaterl agree, hogreatdeal.Crnnationall

endations ossociationematicsTeaeasethequ

membersb0 years,wethandScienyashundreergy.

nd

NancyZimdeanwhoNew Yorherfellowlamentingand initiyears, wedial!”

cher Imper

chievementtudies, newtcentury,thand humanthe generascience anriety of reigor in theievementsized the ninschools. Still otherrprestigetoowever, thaConsequently.

of the Natioof Public aacherImperantity,qual

Preside

by lamentinehavehardnceInitiativedsofpilotl

mpher,afooisnowStark ChancellwAPLUboag, “With aiatives ovee have har

Pa

rative (SM

in sciencewspaper artheUnitedScapitol coual stagnationd mathemmedies forU.S.scienceand increneed for scandhomesrs focus onotheprofesat how teacly,howteac

onal Academand Land‐grative(SMTlity,anddiveents

ng,dlyve,charactelights,each

rmereducaateUniversilor, challeardmembeall the reper the lasrdly moved

age 3

MTI)

e andticles,Statesupledon ofatics.r thiseandeasedchoolsthatn thessioncherschers

mies’grantTI) inersityand

rizedwith

ationityofngedrsbyportsst 30d the

APLU An

APLU lewouldgand matdesirablstrategiecelebrathow dicontributhatframdid notleadersquantitymathemavailablepreparatcommonsuccessfThe AnacomprehassessththeFramwhichpr

alytic Frame

eaders alsoalvanizeunth teachere,feasible,es known te differencfferent buutetowardtmeworkwaexist to heon how toy, qualityatics teachee resourcetionanddevn structurefulpractices

alytic Framhensive tooheirpoliciesmeworkofferogramscan

ework

realized thniversityprepreparationcomparableto others;es amongut equallythesamegoasmissing.Aelp guide tachieve thand dive

ers.Evenmto access

velopment. and langusinscience

mework hasl that allowsandpractersinstitutionbebenchm

hat to buildesidentsann, a commoeandeffectand (c) allprogramsvalid stra

oalsandobAcommonfthe decisionhe goals ofersity ofmoresurpriss leading pNorwasthuage for idandmathem

s been devws institutioicesandtoonstheoppmarkedtoo

d SMTI intondprovostson framewtivestrategilow for anby showinategies cajectives.Buframingtoons by campimprovingscience a

singwas thpractices inhereavailabdentifying,maticsteach

veloped toonal and prbetterdeteportunitytotherprogra

o a successtoenhance

work was neiesacrossindngnutolpustheandhediscoveryn sciencebleawell‐deanalyzingherprepara

fill this vrogram leadermineprogoidentify,inams.

Acomexistdecisihowimproand dmathe

sful nationaesignificanteeded to (anstitutions;

y that thereand matheevelopedinor sharing

ationandde

void. The Fders, facultgramcohernasystemat

mmonframito help

ionsbycamto achieveovingthequdiversity oematicstea

Pa

al initiativetly theirscia) help ide(b)maket

ewasnoreematics teastrumentwg coherentevelopment.

Frameworkty and otherency.Moreticway,are

ingtooldidp guidempusleadere the goaluantity,quof scienceachers.

age 4

thatienceentifythese

eadilyacherwithaand.

is aers toover,easin

dnotthe

rsonls ofalityand

A

APLU An

CreatinCohereThe leveprobablythequalrecentlynation’smathemqualityostudentBehindArace,ethU.S. studoutcomeVirtuallyauthorizbypasshaddressbecauseprogrameducatiouniversisanctionnot,natiInspitetheperfon studeinstitutioSanders,researchvariabilieducatioeducatioCarolinaalternatihave thprogramreason

alytic Frame

g the Analnt Science

el of criticisyneverbeelityof teachithasbecoeconomyisatics and toftheteachachievemenActgreatlyhnicity,anddents, combes,hasledto

y all stateszed districtshighereducastate teachof the un

ms. Policymaon programty and, fornsbythestaonalaccred

ofthesequformanceofent achieveons within, 2010). Inhers usingty amongon programon programa study fouive licensure sophisticmgraduatesto believe

ework

lytic Framee and Math

sm directednasintenseherpreparamemoreinsseenasinctechnology.eris,notsunt (Sandersincreasedtpastperforbined withostrongcrit

s have apps and citieationinstituher shortagneven qualiakers are t

ms are subjepublic uni

ate’sprograditation.

uality‐controfprogramgement, witha state. (Nthree diffedifferentprogram g

m as therems within thnd that thire programscated datatostudentthat the

P

ework to Ihematics T

d at collegeeintheUniationprograntenseprimcreasinglyaSecond, re

urprisingly,s andRiverthe focusonrmance.Thethe focusticismofthe

proved altes to createutionscompges, policymity of teachtaking theseect to severiversities, bamandlicen

olprocessesgraduates (ohin and acroNoell and Gaerent statesmethodologgraduates (e is acrosshe same stis variabilits aswell.Wsystems inachievememixed res

Purpos

dentify EffTeacher Pre

e‐ and univitedStatesaamshasbearilyforthrandvitallyliepeated rethenumbers,1996).Thnaccountabepooracadon teachereprograms

ernative lice their ownpletely.Initimakers arehers produe actions eral levels ofby system onsureappro

s,studiesshorprogramoss programansle, 2008s – Louisiagies found(in the sam other teatate. The Nty held truWhile few sn place tont,thereissults found

e

fective Praeparation

versity‐baseasitiscurreengrowingreereasonsinkedtodevsearch studronein‐schhird, thepability forstemicperforrs as primathatprepar

censure prn teacher piallyandlarnow justif

uced by traeven thoughf quality reoffices; (2)ovalagencie

howthereimcompleterms in the s8; Henry Thana, Northsimilar r

me contentacherNorthe forstateslinklittled by

Theramowithprogotheprogstate

actices andPrograms

ed teacher pently.Disengover seves.First,thewvelopmentsdies have shoolcausalassageof thudentresulrmanceofharily responrethem.

ograms, anpreparationrgelycreatefying alternaditional hih universityeview: (1) areview anes;and(3)m

isnotroutinrs), asmeassame instituhompson, eCarolina anesults: thet areas) w

re is asmuong prograhin a teacgram as ther teachegrams wite.

Pa

d Design Ms

preparationnchantmentraldecadeswellbeingosinthescieshown thatfactorrelatheNoChildltsregardlehugenumbensible for t

nd othersn programsedasattempnative progigher educay‐based teaapproval byd, if warramoreoften

neuniformisuredby imution, or acet al., 2010;nd Tennessre is as m

within a tea

uch variabam graducher educahere is acer educathin the s

age 5

More

n haswiths, butofthences,t thetedtodLeftessofersofthese

havethat

ptstoramsationachery thented,than

ityinmpactcross; andsee –muchacher

bilityuatesationcrossationame

APLU An

researchinotherAs signiprogramidentitythat linkcompleteacademiparticulaprofessoand feepartnersother facompleteachievemTeachers

“[Bandvarcanpre

There isprofessiodiscussioasconceIn creatiimmediaAmerica’UniversitmathematoguidetdrivinguprogramalthoughUTeach,tsawthesThesesaaccredita‘standardInthefacometoofthecr

alytic Frame

hersinLouistates.ificant as thms is the inthe “activek to the effers. It isic achievemar coursesors,clinicaledback, imships or wctors – accers to posment of thes:BuildingE

B]oth prograd timing. Briation in vinnot draweparationpr

sa similar lonal develoonaboutthernedwithp

ing the Sciately with q’s leading ptyleaderswatics,butthetheirdecisioupthequantms.Theywanh thereweretheWoodrowsemodelsasameleadersation, thatds’ofeffectiv

aceofthesebeknownariticalcomp

ework

siana,North

he variabilnability, cure ingredienfective perfonot know

ment of pror courseplacements

mportance owhat combinount for thsitively imeir studentsEvidencefor

ams and paBecause of tirtually allany specifirograms.”[e

lackof evidopment. Anheappropriapre‐service

ience and Mquestions ofpublic reseawerewillingeyandtheiron‐makingabtity,qualityantedtoknoweprominentwWilsonFesthemostco,however,wprograms dvepractice.

realitiesanastheAnalyponents,goa

hCarolinaa

ity of resurrently, of ats” withinormance ofwn what feservice casequences

s,typeofsuof school‐unation of the ability ofmpact thes. As the 2rSoundPolic

athways varthe paucityaspects ofic conclusioemphasisad

denceaboutnd there iateroleoft–intheinse

Mathematics“what to drch institutitocommittrdeansandboutprograanddiversitwthespecifteffortswhiellowsProgrompatiblefowantedgreadeveloped b

ndintheabyticFramewals,objectiv

andinTenn

ults found wany of thesprogramsf programfactors –andidates,s, specificupervisionuniversitythese andf programmeasured010 Nationcynotes:

ry dramaticof systemateacher preons about tdded]

t effective ins an absenteacherpreervicedevel

s Teacherdo” by theions who htoproducemfacultywantmimprovemtyofthescieficstrategiesichshowevramandMatortheircamaterassuranby their fa

bsenceofaworkbeganvesandstra

nesseewoul

within andse value‐ad

nal Researc

cally in theatic researcheparation prthe charact

nductionannce of boteparationprlopmentof

Imperative,presidentshad agreedmoreandbetedguidancmenttomeetenceandmasthatwouldvidenceofpthforAmericmpuses,forance,beyondaculties wer

commontotheprocessategiesthat

Becauseofresearch avariationteacherprpathways,specificcharacteripreparatio

ldbedrama

across teadded studie

ch Council s

eir requiremh aswell arograms anteristics of

ndmentorinth evidencerograms–lteachers.

APLU leadand chanceto participaetterteacheceandacomttheSMTIloathematicstedproducethromiseor sca–notalluavarietyofdachievingstre coherent

ool,theauthsofcreatingattemptto

fthepaucitas well asin virtuallyreparation, we cannconclusionistics of cuonprogram

Pa

aticallydiffe

acher educaes to be ab

study Prepa

ments, strucas the enormnd pathwayscurrent tea

ngandeffee and vigolargelyrega

ders wereellors of somate in the ersofsciencemmonframeong‐termgoeachereducheseresultssuccess– suuniversityleadifferentreatateandnatt and empl

horsofwhagaclassificacodifyash

tyofsystemthe enormyallaspecprogramsnot draws abouturrent teams.

age 6

erent

ationble to

aring

cture,mousys,weacher

ectiveorousarded

facedme ofeffort.eandworkoalsofcation.Andchasadersasons.tionalloyed

athasationhared

maticmousctsofsandanythe

acher

APLU An

languagemathemof the rewhile sigpartnerscontinuielementsTheAnaprogrampossessFramew“signatuteacherso eloqudevelopetothequuniversiuniversiconsisteconfirmeeasy) toresistantThe AnascholarsteachersdistingucontribuThe AnateachercarefullyprogramprogramsharewicontinuepromisinFramew

alytic Frame

e of conceaticsteacheelative paugnificant prship schoolsnglackofasofteacher

alyticFramem coherencesufficient k

workdonotre pedagopreparationuently advoedthistooluestionasketies prepaties can anncy in posiedfortheao create thtinstitution

alytic Frame, teacher es and otherished adviutorsandad

alytic Frameeducators,y assess andms. The Anamfeatureswithoneanote to evolveng practiceswork,areide

ework

pts, strategerpreparaticity of reserogress hass, there remgreementwrpreparatio

ework is inte – and prknowledgeclaimthatigy” for scn forwhichocated. HowwithastronedbyLindare teachernd must imitive outcomuthorsDarle context fn:theresear

ework waseducators, dr P‐20 educsory commdvisorycom

ework is decontent sped improve talytic Framwithinandathertostimas the evids in scienceentifiedand

gies and asion.Thecreearch on qus beenmadmains a lacwithinthepon–thecurr

tendedtobroviding grand skills ttisinclusivcience andhLee Shulmwever, thengbeliefthaaDarling‐Hars well?” –mprove themes. The exling‐Hammofor high qurchuniversi

developeddisciplinarycators frommittee impmmitteemem

esigned to aecialists, rethedesignmework enaacrossinstitmulateprogrdence of sue andmathshared.

ssessmentseatorsoftheuality teachde in recentck of consisrofessionanriculumand

beauseful treater assuto teach effveofthekind mathemaman (2005) authors hattherespoammond–“– is yes!ir programxperience oond’sresearuality teachity.”

with signiy faculty, em across throved thembersarelis

a be a sharesearchers,of scienceaables userstutions–anramimprovuccess for phematics tea

s that areeAnalyticFrher preparat years, notstent implendacrosscodcontent.

tool increaurance thatfectively. Thndofaticshashaveonse“CanBut,

ms to produof developinrch(2006)her educati

ificant inpueducationale nation. TAnalytic Fstedonpag

red tool thacampus leaandmathems to compandtherebylvements.Thprogram stracher prep

…theaskedHammprepayes!

particularrameworkwation. Theytably in clinementationontentarea

atingandacprogram

he creators

uce greaterng this toolthat,“…itision within

ut and critiqpolicy ana

The wise coFrameworkge18.

at enables Paders, and pmatics teacare programearnfromoheAnalyticrategies is caration, usi

responsed by Limond – “Care teache

Pa

to sciencewerewellaalso knewnical practiand even sasaboutthe

chievinggrecompleterss of the Ana

rlspossible(ieven the

que by resealyst, classrouncil of ak. The aut

P–20 educapolicymakeherpreparams and speoneanotherFrameworkcollected aning the Ana

to thequesinda DarCan universers well?”

age 7

andware

w thatce insomeecore

eater willalytic

ifnotmost

earchroomverythors,

ators,ers toationecificrandkwillnd asalytic

stionrling‐sities– is

APLU An

The Anapracticesteacherspermeatall‐camprequirinbefocusthatcandual impandschoofthe20on Clinicauthorsperspectfor createacherteachersachievemThe conNationalTechnolothereisdo a prcandidatshould bshould eclinicalgraduateTheNRCembracicontribumodel ocritical tcontinuu

alytic Frame

alytic Framesanddesigs. These detetheFrampus respongcloselinkedonreliabpositivelyiportance ooolpartners010Reportcal Preparaof the A

tivethatfacting and sueducation,as. All of thment.

ceptual bacl Researchogy:NewPrmoretoteaogram’s retes, but helbe perceiveextend to thand field eesarehistor

Creportanngthepersute to improf teacher eto the effectumisillustr

ework

ework is ingn featuresesign featuework:teacnsibility; itkswithP‐12blypreparinimpactstudf teachingshipsarecoofTheNCAation and Pnalytic Fraculty(discipustaining thandforalighese factor

ckbone of tCouncil puractices foracherprepacruitment ppinggraduaed as an onhe teachersexperiencesricallyempl

d theAnalypectivethatoved teachiducation altivepreparratedinFigu

ntended to semployedtures are crcherpreparis clinica

2schools;angbeginnindentachieveas a clinicaorerecommATEBlueRibPartnershipsamework eplinaryandhe P‐12 pagningcontens contribut

the Analyticublication, EaNewMillearationthanpractices hates succeen‐going resps and schoos for teachloyed.

yticFramewtuniversitying and tealso includesrationof sciure1below

Str

serve as atopreparearitical andrationisanally based,anditmustngteachersement.Theal practicemendationsbbonPanels for Improembrace thpedagogicartnershipsntandpedate to the

c FrameworEducating Tennium. Thntheformahave an impedafter theponsibilityols that parher candida

workreflectyengagemenacher prepas a focus onience andm

w.

ructure

tool for betanddevelop

oved Studenhat viewpoal)andcampnecessaryagogicalcouultimate g

rkwas, in pTeachers ofheNRCrepoalpreparatioportant impirpreparatof the univrtnerwith tates and to

t theworkntwiththesaration simun the role omathematic

These desand perteachercampusclinicallylinkswithbefocused

e

tter underspsciencea

nt Learningoint and apusleadersfor effectivursestothegoal of imp

part, inspirf Science, Mortstronglyonprogrampact on thetion, asbegversity. Thithe universo schools w

of JohnGooseschoolsaultaneouslyof leadershis teachers

sign featurrmeate thpreparatioresponsibbased, r

hP‐12schodonstuden

Pa

standing leandmathem

g. SMTI andan “all‐camareresponve clinical‐beactualneeproving stu

red by the 2Mathematicsysuggestedmitself.Note success oinning teacis responsibity in provwhere prog

odlad(1994andteachery. This exteip and policandothers

res are crie Framewon is anbility; itrequiring cols;anditmntachievem

age 8

adingmatics

d thempus”nsiblebasededsofudent

2001s anddthatonlyof itschers,bilityidinggram

4)byscanndedcy as. The

iticalwork:all‐is

closemustment.

APLU An

TheauthandreguteacheruniversiprogrammostimpTable 1ComponComponeducatio

Cscpesu

Cscaath

alytic Frame

horsoftheularassessmdevelopmeties to documsthatareeportant,the

presentsnents,inclunents stretchon.

CoreCompocience andolicies thatducation oustainedteaCoreCompocience andcceptedintctivelyrecrherigorsof

ework

AnalyticFrmentandfeent. The Aument theemployedtoeimpacton

the organizdingthegoah the tradit

onent1. Lemathematit requiresf teachersachingforceonent2.Remathematopreparatiruiting thosteaching.

rameworkseedbackareAnalytic Fevidence noattract,prestudentach

zation of talsandobjetional, and

eadership,ics teachersthoughtfulis to be ceforstatesaecruitmenttics teacherionprogramewith the

stronglybelimportantrameworknecessary toepare,supphievement.

the Analyticectivesundelimiting, co

Policy ands exist withl leadershipcoherent anandthenatt,Selectionrs begins wms;muchcademonstrat

lieve,asFigateverystaassessmen

omeasureportandret

c FramewoereachCoreonception o

d Infrastruhin a ‘sea’p to helpnd producetion.nandAdmwell beforeareshouldbted interest

gure1showagealongthnt promptsthe impacttainteacher

ork aroundeComponenofwhat con

ucture. Theof local, stform ande a reliabl

mission. Thee candidatebegiventotandability

Pa

ws,thatrigohecontinuus collegest of policiesrcandidates

d the fivent.Thefivenstitutes tea

e preparatiotate and fedsupport ifly effective

epreparatioes are formoidentifyingy toprepar

age 9

orousumofand

s andsand,

CoreCoreacher

on ofderalf theand

onofmallygandre for

APLU Analytic Framework Page 10

Core Component 3. Content, Pedagogy and Clinical Practice. Integrating pre‐servicecandidate’sscienceormathematicsacademiccontentwithlearninghowtodevelopwell‐structured lessons for P‐12 students ‐ and applying and honing thisintegrated capability in authentic school settings is core to the work of science‐mathematicsteacherpreparation.

Core Component 4. Beginning Teacher Support. The education of beginningscience andmathematics teachers isnot complete on graduationday; the contentandpedagogical facultieshavea continuingresponsibility toprovideareasonablelevelofsupporttotheirprogramcompleterswhoassumeteachingrolesinavarietyofsettingsandoftenwithout thementoringandinductionneededofallbeginningteachers.

CoreComponent5.TeacherandSchoolDevelopment.Colleges,universitiesandother organizations that aspire to prepare teachers must also be engaged indeveloping both the teachers and the schools in which pre‐service science‐mathematicsteachersareconsistentlyplacedforclinicalandfieldexperiences;itistheseteachersandschools–onescommittedtothesuccessofallofitsstudentsandthat can model effective practices and inspire prospective teachers of science‐mathematics.

Fourcross‐cuttingdesignfeaturesarecriticalandpermeatetheentireAF.Theyare:

First, teacher educationmust be an “all‐campus” responsibility. Science andmathematics faculty must insure that teacher students have a comprehensiveunderstanding of science and mathematical concepts and theories. Science andmathematics faculty should also collaborate with pedagogical faculty who mustassure that pre‐service teachers learn how to teach science and mathematicseffectively to studentswith different preconceptions and levels of understanding.Campusleadersmustfosterpoliciesthatsupportcollaborationforeffectivescienceandmathematicsteacherpreparation

Second,teachereducationmustbeclinicallybased,requiringcloselinkswithP‐12schools.DeepandsustainedpartnershipsbetweenhighereducationandtheP‐12schoolsareessentialtoeffectivescienceandmathematicsteachereducation.

Third, teacher education must be focused on reliably preparing beginningteachers who can advance student achievement. The end‐goal of positivelyimpacting P‐12 student success must be kept clearly in mind; all science andmathematics teacher education graduates must demonstrate the capability toadvancestudentlearningtoberecommendedforateachinglicense

Fourth, teacher education must fully embrace digital technology andcommunications strategies to bemademore efficient and effective. Accessingdigitalcontent,usingsocialmediaandapplyingothertechnologiesappropriatelytoteachingandlearningarenowessentialskillsforteachersandteachercandidatestomaster. Accessing digital content, using social media and applying othertechnologies appropriately to teaching and learning are now essential skills forteachersandteachercandidatestomaster.


The Analytic Framework survey assessment provides the opportunity to rate eachobjective and strategy on two scales: first, how valued the objective and strategy undereach Core Component is perceived to be; and second, how effectively implemented theobjectiveorstrategyisperceivedtobeintheirprogram.Thetworatingsbothprovidefiveresponse options: Uncertain, Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree and Strongly Agree.Assessing program components on both perceived value and perceived level ofimplementationallowsforadeeperdiscussionandanalysisofthecurrentprogramandthedesiredprogram.

The5goals,14objectivesand56strategiesundertheCoreComponentswerederived,asmentioned earlier, from an extensive process of engaging faculty, administrators,researchers, practitioners and others across the nation over a three‐year period. Theprocessalsoinvolvednumeroussitevisitstowitnessandverifythatthestrategiesselectedfor inclusion in the Analytic Framework were actually functioning practices and withevidencethatthepracticewasproducingthedesiredresult.

The Analytic Framework will continue to evolve as the research base of teacherpreparationanddevelopmentevolvesandasmoreinstitutionsusethetoolforself‐analysisandasanaidforstrategicplanningandprogramimprovement.Readersareinvitedtojointhe effort to improve and employ the Analytic Framework, and also encouraged to visitwww.aplu.org/SMTI to learn more about APLU's Science and Mathematics Teacher Imperative (SMTI) and the Analytic Framework.


Table 1 The Analytic Framework Structure: Core Components, Goals and Objectives

Core Component I: Leadership, Policy and Infrastructure

Goal I: Promote and Sustain a Strong Institutional Commitment to the Preparation and Development of Highly Capable Teachers of Science and Mathematics

Objective I.A

The Institutional Infrastructure Promotes Shared Responsibility and Accountability for Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation within the Institution and with P‐12 Schools and the Community

Objective I.B

Institutional Policies and Practices Provide Encouragement, Support, and Rewards for Disciplinary and Pedagogical Faculty Leadership in Science‐Mathematics Teacher Preparation

Objective I.C

The Institution and/or Program Pursues Partnerships and External Financial and Policy Support for Science‐ Mathematics Teacher Preparation and Development

Core Component II: Recruitment, Selection and Admission

Goal II: Recruit High Quality and Diverse Candidates into Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation

Objective II.A

Institutional and/or Program Policies and Practice Ensure that Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation Is Highly Selective, Admitting Teacher Candidates With Demonstrated Academic Skills and Genuine Interest in K‐12 Science or Mathematics Teaching

Objective II.B

The Teacher Education Program has Developed and Sustained an Infrastructure to Recruit and Retain Teacher Candidates Matched to Assessed Needs for Science and Mathematics Teachers in the Region or State

Objective II.C

The Teacher Education Program Actively Recruits Diverse and Underserved Populations into Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation

Core Component III: Content, Pedagogy and Clinical Practice

Goal III: Prepare Quality Teachers with Demonstrated Capability to Improve Student Success in Science and Mathematics

Objective III.A

The Teacher Preparation Program Ensures that Teacher Candidates Have the Knowledge and Understanding of Science and Mathematics to Promote Student Success

Objective III.B

The Teacher Preparation Program Ensures Students Have the Education and Preparation to Improve Student Success in Science and Mathematics

Objective III.C

The Teacher Preparation Program Embeds Sequential and Diverse Clinical Experiences to Ensure that Teacher Candidates Develop and Demonstrate Proficiency in Improving Student Interest and Success in Science and Mathematics

Objective III.D

The Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation Program Ensures Coherence and Alignment with Local and State Education Policies and National and International Science and Mathematics Standards and for Producing Teacher Candidates who Demonstrate the Capacity to Teach to High Standards

Core Component IV: Beginning Teacher Support Goal IV: Support and Learn from Program Completers as Beginning Science and Mathematics Teachers

Objective IV.A

The Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation Program Track and Assess the Effectiveness of Program Completers and Beginning Teachers

Objective IV.B

The Teacher Preparation Program Provides Mentoring and Support Mechanisms for Recent Science and Mathematics Program Completers

Core Component V: Teacher and School Development Goal V: Provide Continuing Learning Opportunities and Advanced Studies for In Service Science and Mathematics Teachers

Objective V.A

The Science‐ Mathematics Teacher Education Program Partners with Schools and Community to Assess, Plan and Implement Professional Advancement Options for Science and Mathematics Teachers

Objective V.B

The Science‐Mathematics Teacher Education Program Promotes and Sustains Professional Development Programs for Graduates and Other Science and Mathematics Teachers

APLU An

Underly SeveralCouncildocumenexistentimpact oconsensuthat undliteratur

1. Teentirestude

2.Teaengagdevel

3. Insattenrecru

4. Meffectcandi

5. Proteach

6.Prosuccebackg

7. Prdevelmanagrow

8.Proexperimpro

9.Intcareeprofe

10. Tothercandi

alytic Frame

ying Assert

studies, increportPrepnted that thin somearon studentus to suppoderlie theArereviewsu

Table2

eacher educaeuniversityentswhoent

acherpreparge P‐12 edulopingteache

stitutional, stion to policuitmentintop

ultidimensiotivelymanagidatesinresp

ospective teah.

ospective teaeed in teachigroundsand

rospective tlopmentofyageclassroomth.

ospectiveteariences in dovetheirclas

tensive,highers can increession.

Teachers in prs onwhat aidatesandbe

ework

tions of th

cluding theparingTeache researchreas, and isachieveme

ort 10 asseAnalytic Fraupportingth

2.TenUnde

ation is a caaffectthenuerandcomp

ration isaclucators anders

state, and locies and theprogramsan

onal and taged,canincreponsetoiden

achers need

achersneeding the courdifferentlev

teachers neoungpeoplemssothatth

achersneedfifferent schossroomeffec

‐qualitymenease their ef

partnershipand how theeginningteac

he Analytic

e five‐yearchers:Buildh base for tparticularlent. Howevertions abouamework. Aheseassertio

erlyingAss

ampus‐wideumber,qualileteteacher

linical‐basedschools as e

ocal policieseir impact onndintothete

argeted teaceasethequantifiedneeds

tobewell g

sufficientperse content tvelsofpriork

eed knowled,anunderstaheymotivate

frequentwelool environmctiveness.

ntoringandiffectiveness

schools musey are teachichers.

c Framewo

study resuding Evidencteacher preplydeficientver, there iut quality tAll of the asonsisavaila

sertionsof

responsibiliity,diversitypreparation

dandextendequal partne

affect the qn preparatioachingprofe

cher preparlity,quantitys.

grounded in

edagogicalkto studentsknowledge.

dge of theandingofhoweandsuppor

ll‐structuredments to su

inductionduand the like

st be suppoing and how

ork

ulting in thce for Sounparation isin the lacks sufficientteacher pressertions arableuponr

theAnalyt

ty. The poliy—andultimprograms.

dedenterprisers in the p

quality of teon programsession,shoul

ration recruy,anddivers

the content

knowledgeanwith differe

intellectuawyoungpeortstudents’i

dandwell‐support their

uringtheearelihood that

rted to learnw tomentor,

e 2010 NadPolicy, citweak over

kofoutcomt evidenceparation anre presentedequest.)

ticFramew

icies and pramatelythecom

sethat,ofneprocess or p

eacher prepas and practicdbeahighp

uitment strasityofteache

t knowledge

ndskill toenent cultural

l, social anoplelearn,anintellectuala

upervisedclinability to r

rlyyearsofnt they will r

n, grow, and guide and a

Pag

ational Reseted above,rall, almostmesexpresseor professnd developmd in Table

work

actices of thmpetence—o

ecessity,muspreparing an

aration. Thuces, includinpriority.

ategies, wheerpreparatio

ofwhat the

nable themtand linguist

nd emotionandtheskillstandemotiona

nicalandfieleflect on an

newteacherremain in th

d reflect witassist teache

ge 13

earchhavenon‐edasionalment2. (A

heof

stnd

us,ng

enon

ey

totic

altoal

ldnd

rs’he

ther

APLU An

AnalyticTheearlofAPLUNationaltheFramindividuhelpfulprogrammathembecausedisciplinrespecteteacheron pagedeliberaAppendiThe refFramewinstitutioawardedUniversiAF to idselectedpracticessupportireviewerrespecteand witmathemstructurreviewerandweacoherent

alytic Frame

c Framewo

ydevelopmandtheCalScienceFomework,andals, focusin this pr

mmaticreforaticsteacheofsitevisit

nary and peed organizaeducation.A15. The sutely iteratiix.

finement awork continuonsthataredtotheAssities.Admindentify andstrategiess. Theywiling evidencrs. Thised educatorth leadersaticsteachee and contrsoftheFraknessesoftprograms

ework

ork Develo

mentoftheAarnegieCorpoundation.Tdembeddedgroup discrocess werrmsledtoaergraduateststoselecteedagogicaltional leadeAlistingofummary ofve process

and validatues with thepartofansociationofnistratorsanrecommenthat theyl make formce, to APLextensive

rs, includinof organizerpreparatient of therameworktexistingprandsharing

opment

AnalyticFraporationofThecreatorsdadviceanussions, invre those uanincreaseis.TheFramedinstitutiouniversityers – manycontributomeetings, fs of the Fr

tion proceshe participanNSFMSP/Publicandndfacultyarnd for exterbelieve aremal nominaLU staff an

engagemng disciplinaations engionspecificaFrameworkhatitcanbrograms,begsuccessful

ameworkbeNewYork,stooktheledrecommevited critiquniversitiesinthenumbmeworkhasonsandthefaculty, K‐y of whomrsandrevifocus groupramework’s

ss for theation of 25RETAgrantLand‐grantreusingthernal reviewe promisingations, withnd externalment withary facultyaged in teally–hasgrk. There isbeusedasanchmarkinglpractices.

eganin2007andcontineadindeveendationsreques, and cs that hadber,quality,beensignifeextensive12 teacherwere chamewersof thps and othes developm

e5ttewghlhy,eacher educreatlyenhangeneral agatoolforasgwithothe

Extensiverespectedisciplinleadersoin teacscienceapreparatgreatlyeofthestrFramewo

7withthefinuedwithsulopingtheieceivedfromcampus visd documen,ordiversitficantlyimpinputandcrs and admmpions as wheFramewoer activitiesment can b

cation – anncedthefacgreement amssessingboerprograms

e engaged educatonary faculoforganizacher educandmathetion specienhancedthructureandork.

Pag

financialsupupportfrominitialcontemmeetingssits. Particunted howtyofscienceprovedovercritiqueofmministrators,well as critiork ispreseinvolved ine found in

nd sciencecevalidityomong the mththestrens,buildingm

gementors, inclulty, andationsengacation –matics teaifically –hefacevalidcontentof

ge 14

pportmtheentofwithularlytheireandtimemany, andics ofentedn then the

andofthemanyngthsmore

withdingwithagedandcherhasidityfthe

APLU An

UsefulnTheiteraof teachresearchthat conFramew3, to boattempteusers.

•

•

•

•

The Anagoals, odevelopm

Undeprog

Asse Build

deve

ReflectinFramewinstitutio

Benc Benc Benc

TheAnanational

Idenprep

Suppcomm

Next St

alytic Frame

ness of the

ativeevoluterdevelopmh‐basedassuntributed towork’slogicaoth the devedtodevelo

Tab

Utility: Is the

Accuracy: Do

Feasibility: Is

Propriety: Ca

alytic Framebjectives amentthatca

ertakeangramstoidessprogramdnewandelopment.

ng the extwork is a rionsandoth

chmarkthechmark/cochmarkthe

alyticFrameexpertisea

ntify curreparationanport collabmonframin

eps for the

ework

e Framewo

tionoftheAment that isumptions.To the Framandcontentvelopers anoptheFram

ble3.Four

e Analytic Fra

oes the Analy

s the Analytic

an the Analyt

ework is stnd strategianbeusedt

orderedanentifykeymsandidendmore coh

tensive coch sourceherprogram

eirprogramompareproeirprogram

eworkwasgandobserve

ent and nnddevelopmborative rengtool.

e Framewo

ork

AnalyticFrasguidedbyThevariousmework’s detbyaskingnd potentiameworkinw

Questions

mework a too

tic Framewor

c Framework a

ic Framework

tructured asies of sciento:

nalysisoffactorsconntifypossibherentand

nsultationof ideas fo

mproviders

mtootherpogramstopmstorecog

guidedinitsedpractice.A

needed rementesearch ac

ork

meworkwayasetof lofocusgroupevelopmentfourrelatedl users ofwaysthatw

Aboutthe

ol that people

rk produce ac

able to be use

k be employe

s a comprence and m

entireprontributingtbleprogrameffectivem

with leador programto:

programswpeerinstitugnizedprom

screationbAssuchitis

esearch ac

cross instit

asintentionogicaland(wps,invitedct process wdquestionsthe tool. wouldyield

AnalyticFr

e want to use

ccurate, comp

ed easily in a

ed with appro

ehensive anmathematics

gramsor stoprogrammimprovemodelsof

ding nationand policy

withintheiutionswithmisingprac

byacombinsausefulst

cross the

tutions an

nal.Itwasbwhere thecritiquesanwere intendofinterest,In each caanaffirmat

ramework

e and find use

parable inform

variety of co

opriate privac

nd ordereds teacher p

selectedprm/practiceementsteacherpr

nal expertsy improvem

irownunivhinoracrosctices,

nationofavaructureto:

continuu

nd organiza

Pag

asedonamevidenceexndcampusvded to test,showninTase the creativerespons

k

eful?

mation?

ontexts?

cy safeguards

classificatiopreparation

racticeswisuccess

reparation

s, the Anaments to en

versityssastates

ailablerese

m of tea

ations usin

ge 15

modelxists)visitst theTableatorsseby

?

on of and

ithin

nand

alyticnable

earch,

acher

ng a


WithsupportfromNSFandothersources,theimmediatenextstepsinthedevelopmentoftheAnalyticFrameworkaredescribedinthefollowingfourtasksandactivities:Task1:Refineusability of theAnalytic Framework anddefine features critical to

highqualityprograms Refine accessibility, accuracy and feasibility of Framework as a tool for program

assessmentandbenchmarkingacrossbothinstitutionsanduniversitysystem; Define a smaller subset of key program features or quality indicators that are

fundamentaltooverallprogrameffectiveness

Task2:IdentifyPromisingPracticesandbenchmarkprogramsagainstthem ExplorehowtousetheFrameworktoidentifyleadingandpromisingpracticeswiththe

helpofexpertP‐12practitionersandhighereducationfaculty Engage institutions and their partners in benchmarking their programs to those

practices.

Task3:EnhanceUseoftheAnalyticFrameworkwithassociatedtechnicalassistance Investigatetheeffectivenessofdifferentformsoftechnicalassistancethatcanbeused

inconjunctionwiththeFramework’sonlinesurveytoadvanceprogramimprovements,includingself‐study,expertsitevisits,peer‐to‐peercoaching,andaccesstoonlineandin‐personassistance

Evaluateimpactofintensiveexpertsitevisitsanddevelopaprotocolforsitereviews.

Task4:Exploreusing theAnalyticFramework forbetteralignmentw/keypoliciesandguidelines

PilotthepotentialofusingtheFramework’sassessmenttohelpinstitutionsbetteraligntheir programs with policies and guidelines such as those of the National ScienceTeachers Association, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, theCommonCore State Standards in Math, the NRC Science Framework, NCATE’s Blue RibbonReportonClinicalPractice,CCSSOInTASCstandards,andalsoperhapsasacomplementto national program accreditation by the Council for the Accreditation of EducatorPreparation,Inc.(CAEP).


LeadAuthor:CharlesR.Coble,Co‐director,ScienceandmathematicsTeacher ImperativeandCo‐founderandPartner,TheThirdMileGroupandTeacherPreparationAnalytics

Contributing authors: LizanneDeStefano, Fox Family Distinguished Professor of Education andDirectorofI‐STEM,UniversityofIllinoisatUrbana‐Champaign;MichaelAllen,AllenEducationandTeacher Preparation Analytics, Washington, DC; Nancy Shapiro, Associate Vice‐Chancellor,UniversitySystemofMaryland;andJenniferFrank,P–20PartnershipProjectEvaluatorandProjectDirector,UniversitySystemofMaryland;GaryMartin,LeischuckProfessor,MathematicsEducation,Department of Curriculum and Teaching, Auburn University; Marilyn Strutchens, M. C. FraleyProfessorofMathematicsEducation,AuburnUniversityThe Analytic Framework has been developed with the tireless enthusiasm, prodding and activeengagement of Howard Gobstein, Executive Vice President, Research, Innovation, and STEMEducation,APLU.Theauthorsthankthefollowingindividualsfortheirsubstantivecritiqueandhelpfulsuggestions:DebraAmbrosetti,JoshAnderson,DavidAndrews,DeborahL.Ball,CynthiaBauerle,CamillaBenbow,Marty Bonsangue, Jana Bouwma‐Gearhart, Valerie Brown‐Schild, Jennifer Bruckner, BonnieBrunckhorst,HerbBrunckhorst,TonyBryk,TomCarroll,JimCibulka,MartaCivil,AngeloCollins,JaneCoggshall, Carlos Contreras, Vikki Costa, Amy Cox‐Peterson, Ed Crowe, Linda Darling‐Hammond,MelissaDodson,FrancisEberle,RoyEdelfelt,MarkEllis,SusanElrod,MaryLouFulton,EugeneGarcia,CynthiaGautreau,BarbaraGonzalez,DanielGoroff,GeneHall,VictoriaHammer, JimHamos,JosephHeppert,TedHodapp,DanHoward‐Greene,GeorgeHynd,Karen Ivers,GladisKersaint,TomKoballa,BobKoch,SteveKoziol,SabrinaLaine,FrancesLawrenz,MarshaLevine,JimLewis,MichaelLoverude,JimMiddlelton, DennisMinchella, DavidMonk, SidneyMoon,MargaretMohr‐Schroeder, CherilynnMorrow, Mary Nakhleh, Valerie Otero, Michael Padilla, Tracy Le Quey Parker, Susan Parry, SueParsons,MonicaPlisch,JanetPrado,JenniferPresley,KristenShandHeidiRamirez,MaryAnnRankin,JamesRaths,Jr.,KacyRedd,BarbaraReys,JeffRoberts,SharonRobinson,ChrisRoe,MaryannSantosde Barona, Kay Shallenkamp, Sam Silverstein, Linda Slakey, Sam Stern, Gay Stewart, MeganTommerup, CatherineWalker,MaryWalker, LynneWeisenbach,GeraldWheeler, JenniferWilhelm,JennieWhitcomb, SuzanneWilson, DonnaWiseman and John Yopp. Thanks also to Jim Boyd andLinwood“Buddy”SwainofHatterasDesigns,Inc.fortheirskillandintellectualcontributionstothewebsiteandsurveydesignoftheAnalyticFrameworkAdvisoryCommittee for theAnalyticFramework:Deborah L.Ball,Dean, School ofEducation,University of Michigan; Cynthia Bauerle, Senior Program Officer, PreCollege and UndergraduateScienceEducation ,HowardHughesMedicalInstitute;CarlosContreras,USEducationDirector,IntelCorporation;DanielGoroff,ProgramDirector ,AlfredP.SloanFoundation;David Imig,Professorofthe Practice, College of Education, University of Maryland; Jim Lewis, Professor of Mathematics,UniversityofNebraska‐Lincoln;DeborahLoweVandell,ProfessorandChair,DepartmentofEducation,University of California, Irvine; LynneWeisenbach, Vice Chancellor for Educator Preparation andInnovation,BoardofRegentsoftheUniversitySystemofGeorgia;StamatisVokos,ProfessorofPhysics,SeattlePacificUniversity;SuzanneWilson,Chair,Dept.ofTeacherEducation,CollegeofEducation,MichiganStateUniversity.Analytic Framework© Copyright 2011 by APLU and Charles R. Coble, with, Lizanne DeStefano,Michael Allen, NancyShapiro,JenniferFrankGaryMartinandMarilynStrutchens.ThismaterialisbaseduponworksupportedbytheNationalScience Foundation under Grant No. 0829720, 0831950 and 1004800. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions orrecommendationsexpressed in thismaterial are thoseof theauthor(s)anddonotnecessarily reflect theviewsof theNationalScienceFoundation.Allrightsarereserved

Authors and Contributors


References

Darling‐Hammond, Linda. Powerful Teacher Education: Lessons from Exemplary Programs. San

Francisco:Jossey‐BassPublishers,2006.Goodlad, John. Educational Renewal: Better Teachers, Better Schools. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass

Publishers,1994.Henry,GaryT.CharlesThompson,KevinC.Bastian,C.KevinFortner,DavidC.Kershaw,

Kelly M. Purtell, Rebecca A. Zulli. Portals Report: Preparation and Student Test Scores inNorth Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Institute for Public Policy, University of NorthCarolina,2010.

NationalCouncilforAccreditationofTeacherEducation.TransformingTeacherEducationThrough

ClinicalPractice:ANationalStrategytoPrepareEffectiveTeachers,ReportofTheNCATEBlueRibbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning.Washington,DC:NCATE,November2010.

National Science Foundation – SGER: Content Validation Study for an Analytic Framework to

Identify Strategies Employed in Promising K–12 Science and Mathematics TeacherPreparationPrograms,June2008‐August2009[$197,000–#REC‐0829720]andNSF‐RETASupplement: Promoting Institutional Change to Strengthen Science Teacher Preparation,January5,2010‐Spring2012)[$297,069‐#REC‐1004800]

Noell, George H. and Kristen A. Gansle. Louisiana Value‐Added Teacher Preparation, Assessment. BatonRouge,LA:LouisianaStateUniversity,2008.PreparingTeachers:BuildingEvidenceforSoundPolicy,2010NationalResearchCouncil StudyReport.Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress,2010. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.Washington,DC:NationalAcademyofSciences,2008.RisingAbovetheGatheringStorm,Revisited:RapidlyApproachingCategory5.Washington, DC:NationalAcademyofSciences,2010.Sanders,WilliamL.,andRivers,J.C.CumulativeandResidualEffectsofTeachersonFuture

Student Academic Achievement, Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value‐AddedResearchandAssessmentCenter,1996.

Sanders, William. Senior Manager of value‐added assessment and research, SAS Institute Inc., Cary,N.C.Personaltelephoneconversationwiththeauthor,October20,2010.Shulman,LeeS.SignaturePedagogiesoftheProfessions,Dædalus.Summer2005,pp.52‐59.WhatStudentsKnowandCanDo:StudentPerformanceinReading,Mathematicsand Science,VolumeI,2009Results,ProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment. Paris:OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment,2009.


Date Progression of Input and Development

Notable Events

Summer‐fall, 2007

The need for a tool to describe the complexity of effective teacher preparation and to “capture” and share promising practices across the broad spectrum of secondary science and mathematics teacher preparation and development was conceived and initial drafts crafted around a model called the Teacher Development Continuum. The first drafts were structured around four goals and a set of objectives and strategies linked to teacher recruitment, preparation, induction and development.

February 2008 Sharon Robinson, CEO of AACTE, hosts a discussion and review of the initial draft of the AF with Coble and five selected leaders and AACTE board members in New Orleans, LA.

March 28, 2008 Gerry Wheeler, then‐president of the National Science Teachers Association, hosts a discussion and review of the AF with principal author Charles Coble, SMTI co‐director Howard Gobstein and six selected leaders in science education in Boston, MA.

June 1, 2008 NSF proposal written by C. Coble and L. DeStefano: Content Validation Study for an Analytic Framework to Identify Strategies Employed in Promising K‐12 Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation Programs. Funded for $197,000.

June 5, 2008 George Hynd, then Dean of the Arizona State University College of Education, convenes a discussion and review of the AF with C. Coble and five disciplinary and pedagogical faculty.

July 1, 2008 Mary Ann Rankin, Tracy Parker, and several colleagues associated with the UTeach Program host a half‐day discussion with C. Coble and H. Gobstein and review of the draft AF.

September 21–22, 2008

Tony Bryk and Linda Darling‐Hammond co‐host with C. Coble and H. Gobstein a meeting of 20 teacher educators, disciplinary leaders, and researchers at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in Palo Alto, CA to critique the content of the AF

September ‐December 2008

Nancy Shapiro, Associate Vice Chancellor, University System of Maryland, and Jennifer Frank, P‐20 Partnership Project Evaluator, University System of Maryland, conceptualize and draft what becomes the basis of Goal I of the AF with a focus on policy development and institutional sustainability.

February 26‐27, 2009

University of Arkansas site visit and case study led by C. Coble who meets with Gay Stewart, Department of Physics, David Gearhart, Chancellor, and 12 faculty, administrators, physics students and teachers.

April 15, 2009 AERA presentation on AF, San Diego, CA by Coble, DeStefano, Shapiro and Frank

April 29‐30, 2009 Richard N. Steinberg, Professor of Science Education, School of Education and Department of Physic hosts a two‐day site visit to City College of New York (with American Physical Sciences National Task Force on Teacher Education in Physics) to study site visit protocol and share AF development

May 5, 2009 Donna Wiseman, Dean, College of Education, University of Maryland hosts a critique of the AF with Coble, Shapiro and Frank.

May 19–20, 2009 Comments and critiques solicited from representatives from 27 institutions of higher education selected to be a part of an APLU NSF‐funded MSP/RETA grant in Boulder, CO.

June 2–3, 2009 Ron Henry, then Provost at Georgia State University, Cherilynn Morrow, Physics faculty at GSU, disciplinary administrators and director of teacher education conduct (with C. Coble) a day‐long retreat and review of science‐math teacher preparation using the AF at Amicolola Falls State Park and Lodge, GA

June 26, 2009 C. Coble, L. DeStefano and H. Gobstein conduct a daylong analysis and critique in Chicago by selected science program leaders from the University of Arkansas, University of Colorado‐Boulder, and the University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign.

AppendixA


Date Progression of Input and Development Notable Events

June 30, 2009 Follow‐up visit with Tony Bryk at the Carnegie Foundation in Palo Alto to share progress in the development of the AF and seek his further advice and collaboration.

July 1, 2009 Mary Ann Rankin, Tracy LaQuey Parker, Kim Hughes and other UTeach staff meet with C. Coble, L. De Stefano and H. Gobstein for a half‐day debrief on their analysis of UTeach and the AF.

July 24, 2009 Felice Nudelman, Director of Education for the New York Times, hosts a meeting that includes Andrew Thomson of Cisco International to discuss ways to create an online version of the AF that might be made available nationally and internationally.

August 29, 2009 Jim Hamos, Joan Ferrini‐Munday, Janice Earle and Joan Prival at NSF, and Michele Cahill, Carnegie Corporation of New York, meet with Coble, DeStefano and Gobstein in DC to review progress and potential extended support for AF development.

August–September 2009

David Imig, University of Maryland‐College Park and past‐president and CEO of AACTE, Ed Crowe, consultant to NCTAF and Teachers for a New Era, Gene Hall, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and Suzanne Wilson, Michigan State University submit invited critiques of the AF.

September 3‐4, 2009

AF significantly revised based on invited critiques during two‐day work meeting in Chapel Hill, C. Coble and L. DeStefano

October 22, 2009 Submission of NSF RETA Supplement proposal written by Coble, DeStefano and edited by Gobstein to continue development of AF, develop rubrics, initiate an advisory committee and identify promising practices; funded for $297,069.

November 2, 2009

Kay Howe, director and Susan Van Gundy, Assistant Director of NDSL, host meeting in Boulder, CO with Felice Nudleman, NY Times/Epsilon, followed by meeting with Lynne Rhodes, then dean of the College of Education, University of Colorado‐Denver with Coble and Katy Anthes to discuss technology support and applications of AF.

December 14, 2009

Lee Todd, President, University of Kentucky, hosts meeting with H. Gobstein and C. Coble with Kumble Subbaswany, Provost; Mary John O’Hair, Dean of the College of Education; and John Yopp, Director of the Appalachian Math and Science Partnership and Associate Provost to discuss potential applications and the sustainability of the AF after NSF funding.

December 15, 2009

Angela Baber, STEM Program Director, National Governors Association, Washington, DC meets with Coble and Gobstein for SMTI/AF and NGA updates.

February 2010–present

Hatteras Designs, Inc. contracted to assist the authors in developing an online version of the AF featuring three main dimensions: (a) Explore the AF Tool; (b) Take the AF Assessments; and (c) Access the Promising Practices.

March 2‐3, 2010 In Washington, DC, APLU hosts directors of state and national programs offering pre‐service and in‐service research experiences for teachers to share knowledge and recommend changes in the AF to reflect this emerging trend in STEM preparation and development.

February–April 2010

Michael Allen conducts literature review and makes recommendations for substantive additions and changes, particularly to Goals IV and V.

May–June 2010 James Raths, Jr., University of Delaware, and Jim Lewis, University of Nebraska‐Lincoln, submit detailed critique of AF.

May 27–28, 2010 Dean Mary Lynn Calhoun and University of North Carolina‐Charlotte host the first field test of the online version of the AF.

June 8–11, 2010 2nd Annual SMTI Conference and RETA Leadership meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio yields additional suggestions and invitations to serve as field test sites.


Date Progression of Input and Development Notable Events

October 10, 2010 Battelle/Ohio STEM Learning Network host meeting in Columbus, Ohio for H. Gobstein and C. Coble with Steve Krak, Program Manager; Rich Rosen, Battelle/OSLN Education & Philanthropy; Brad Mitchell, Batelle/OSLN Education & Economic Engagement; Marcy Raymond, Principal, Metro Early College High School and Nelson Vincent, Associate Dean, College of Education, University of Cincinnati for the purpose off exploring applications of the AF to the Battelle/Ohio work.

September 15, 2010

C. Coble and L. DeStefano meet with Teach for America Chicago staff, Josh Anderson, Jeremy Mann, Sarah Gallagher, and Heather McMillan to examine the recruitment, preparation, and induction of successful TFA candidates.

October 21, 2010 H. Gobstein, C. Coble and L. DeStefano conduct APLU Forum on the AF in Washington, DC with panelists Michael C. Lach, Special Assistant, STEM Education, U.S. Dept of Education; Ed Crowe, Senior Consultant, Woodrow Wilson Foundation; and Donna Wiseman, Dean, College of Education, University of Maryland.

December 3, 2010 Steve Warwick, CEO of Innovations Commercialization, LLC leads Coble and DeStefano (via Skype) in a guided discussion of a sustainability plan for the AF.

December 15, 2010

Lee Todd, President, University of Kentucky, hosts meeting with H. Gobstein and C. Coble Mary John O’Hair, Dean of the College of Education; John Yopp, Director of the Appalachian Math and Science Partnership, Jana Bouwma‐Gearhardt, Margaret Mohr‐Schroeder, and Jennifer Wilhelm who completed the first written draft of AF Level I “Quick” Assessment developed by C. Coble. .

January 12, 2011 Jayne Fleener, Dean, College of Education at NC State University and Gerald Ponder, Associate Dean, meet with Coble and agree to field test initial draft of AF Level I Assessment (as agreed to in a meeting on December 20, 2010 at NCSU).

January 17, 2011 Valerie Brown‐Schild, Director of the Kenan Fellows Program at NC State University and Susan Parry, Assistant Director of Partnerships and Resource Development, engage with Coble in a daylong analysis of their responses to and critique of the AF Level II Assessment.

January 24, 2011 Donna Gollnick and Emerson Elliot with NCATE meet with Coble in DC to discuss possible applications of the AF for program recognition by NCATE.

February 13‐14, 2011

Jennifer Presley and Coble attend CSU STEM TQ Summit in Irvine, CA and meet with Sharon Robinson, President of AACTE and Jim Cibulka, CEO of NCATE to provide an update of the AF and potential applications.

February 15, 2011 Deborah Lowe‐Vandell, Chair, Department of Education UC‐Irvine, Acting Dean of Biological Sciences Albert Bennett and Sue Marshall, Cal Teach Co‐Director, meet with Presley and Coble for an update of SMTI, the Teaching and Learning Collaborative and the AF.

February 15, 2011 Victoria “Vikki” Costa, Director of Science Education, CSU‐Fullerton organizes and hosts a site visit and consensus‐building process involving 12 faculty and administrators who had previously completed the AF Level I Assessment.

February 25, 2011 Presentation on AF by C. Coble at AACTE Annual Conference, San Diego, CA.

March 1, 2011 Jim Hamos, Program Director, DUE/EHR, NSF; Steve Robinson, White House Domestic Policy Advisor; and Krish Mathur, FIPSE Program Director, meet with C. Coble and H. Gobstein in DC for AF update and potential applications with federal initiatives.

March 9 and 24 Krish Mathur, FIPSE Program Director, completes AF critique resulting in important adjustments in Goal I meaning and syntax.

March 11, 2011 Presentation on AF at NSTA Annual Convention, San Francisco, CA, by C. Coble and H. Gobstein.


Date Progression of Input and Development

Notable Events

March 23, 2011 Michelle Goddard Terrell, NC Policy Consultant, completes a crosswalk of the AF Level I Assessment (v3.14.11) and NCTQ Rating Standards, INTASC Standards and NCATE Unit and SPA Standards in Science and Mathematics.

March 27, 2011 Michael Allen completes two‐day review and critique of the AF, resulting in significant adjustments throughout the AF, particularly in Goals III and V.

April 27, 2011 Deborah Ball, Dean, College of Education, University of Michigan and Francesca Forzani, Associate Director of the UM Teacher Education Initiative, critique the AF.

May 1‐9, 2011 Susan Ganter, chair of the 25‐member Mathematics, Science and Instructional Technology Department at East Carolina University, pilots the AF Level I Assessment as a departmental strategic planning tool, with C. Coble.

May 23, 2011 Sidney Moon, Associate Dean, College of Education and Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Program coordinator at Purdue University, engages faculty in pilot study of the AF and assessment of the STEM Goes Rural, Biology Education, Physics Education, Chemistry Education, Math Education, and Technology Education programs.

May 31, 2011 Marsha Levine, Project Director, NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning, submits her comparative analysis of the recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Report and the AF Level I Assessment.

June 7, 2011 Twenty‐six institutions that are part of an NSF MSP/RETA grant to APLU invited to submit nominations and supporting evidence of Promising Practices, which will be critiqued by panels of national experts. Accepted practices will be posted on the SMTI/AF website.

June 8, 2011 First meeting of the AF Advisory Committee, Portland, OR: Deborah Ball, Cynthia Bauerle, Carlos Contraras, Daniel Goroff, Jim Lewis, Lynne Weisenbach, Stamatis Vokos and Suzanne Wilson. (David Imig and Deborah Lowe Vandell unable to participate, but provide follow‐up comments and suggestions for improving the AF and AF White paper.)

Documents

AF White Paper 11-29-12 · A Scie Sci Asso The Th naly Assessing nce and Cha ence and ciation fo C ird Mile G Deve tic F Innovat Mathem rles R. C Mathem r Public o‐found roup &