Docstoc

Feedback_Improvement-3

Document Sample
Feedback_Improvement-3 Powered By Docstoc
					Proposed
Program
Model
Feedback
Areas for
Improvement

CIC
                                                                                                                                                               2


Contents
Program Content ................................................................................................................................... 3
Language and Literacy............................................................................................................................ 3
Assessment and Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 3
Diversity and Special Education ........................................................................................................... 4
Field Experience ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Seminar ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
Child Development .................................................................................................................................. 5
Contexts ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Teacher Identity ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Technology in Education ....................................................................................................................... 6
Counselling Psychology ......................................................................................................................... 6
Concentrations ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Program Organization
Coordination and Collaboration ........................................................................................................... 8
One and Two Credits ............................................................................................................................... 9
Coherence ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Workload ................................................................................................................................................. 11
Minors ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
Elementary Subject Areas .................................................................................................................... 13
Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................. 15
Implementation...................................................................................................................................... 15
Lecture/Section Size ............................................................................................................................. 15
Post-Undergraduate .............................................................................................................................. 16
Overall ...................................................................................................................................................... 16
                                                                                                     3



Program Content
Language and Literacy
As you are likely aware, our current program requires only 3 credits of language arts subject area
instruction. However, currently, some of our students (early childhood minors, language and
literacy minors, our collaborative program cohorts) do receive 6 or more credits of language and
literacy course work as EDEL courses. Generally, the students who receive 6 - 9 credits (EDEL 305,
plus one or two 400 level coursesz0 seem to be quite well prepared for the challenges of classroom
literacy instruction.

This past year I have received a number of communications with students who, after completing
305, have approached the local school boards about applying to teach, and they have been told that
they need to have a second 3 credit language and literacy course in order to be considered for an
elementary position.

Literacy in the proposal is seen as “…fragmented…”

It isn’t clear to me within the new program how, when, where (and with expert instruction) our
students would learn how to teach children how to read and write….generally, with my experience
with multiple faculties of education this takes a minimum of one 3 credit course and to do it well
(and address assessment) the equivalent of 6 credits is needed

I understand from the committee’s presentation of the proposed program at the Faculty meeting
that the committee sees this program as substantially increasing the focus on language and literacy
within our programs. The fragmentation of this focus, however, seems unworkable to us in
Language and Literacy Education.

Recreational Literacies (youth culture)


Assessment and Evaluation

In an earlier study that I did, I clearly found that when assessment and evaluation topics were
included in curriculum type courses and educational courses on learning and/or development,
assessment and evaluation courses received short shift

A place where the fundamentals of assessment are introduced – functions, methods which are not
subject specific. This must occur in term 1 or 2.
                                                                                                       4


Diversity and Special Education

In looking at the details, it seems that language diversity (that the Faculty refused to acknowledge
with a separate entry in the previous document) is now represented more than any other form of
diversity/difference; why and how is this justified

Meeting the needs of Diverse Learners I and II are heavily focused on ELL. Where is the knowledge
and competencies in meeting the needs of special ed students. I don’t see special education student
needs addressed in the outcomes of Teaching and Learning across the subject areas. I would
suggest that should be made explicit across subject area.

Aboriginal and Indigenous downplayed but so is other world views eg. African, Religions, Eastern,
gender


Field Experience
Community placement proposal criticized – should be aligned to subject areas

Lots of experiences, perhaps too many. Join some experiences together?

Early field experience  what is the purpose? How many students withdraw after this because
they decide teaching is not for them? What are the stats from the old EDFX 200?

Changed IPT and APT recently; now changing again
       Solution: include as much of the previous work as possible

There is a need to have a portion of what we do in APT earlier in the program and NOT connected
to a high performance situation (field experience)

Regarding the “Community-based Learning Visits” in Field Experience in Term 3, have you
considered the implications for community agencies for visits from 500-750 students? How will we
find placements for such a large number of students? How can this be operationalized into a
meaningful experience for students?


Seminar

Seminar not a good place to “…bring it all together…” Is there a better place?

Cohort model not explored at all in the proposal. Perhaps there would be opportunities for a cohort
experience in the Ed. Seminar?

Blog that “counts”
                                                                                                     5



Why can’t we have cohorts? In the ed. Seminar? If it is important to the program we need to MAKE
IT HAPPEN.

Give ed seminar to curriculum areas, to connect them

The education seminar needs careful planning – not just the content and staffing, but also the
grouping of students. In my experience with the ED 420 seminar of the 1990s, a seminar that is
non-cohort and taught by instructors who do not have any previous relationship with the students,
this is a recipe for disaster (or at least dissatisfaction).

We do not see the seminars, as outlined here, as having sufficient potential to enhance integration.
They are too brief, and we have not yet seen a commitment/resources to having them taught by
long-term faculty who can help our students shape their practical questions into ones that
acknowledge the “bigger picture.” If we cannot do the seminars well, it would be better to use those
credits elsewhere (bearing in mind that the component of CFC is called “synthesis and integration”
not “seminars”.




Child Development

Child development content seen as weak


Contexts

Knowledge – historical, philosophical, sociological background of teaching is lacking eg. Aboriginal
perspectives. Specific courses (cannot make out word) be a solution; but this can quickly become a
turf battle when the courses (cannot make out word) compulsory.

History, philosophy of education isn’t evident.

Missing: History and Philosophy:
           o Is it part of Ed Seminar?
           o Who does it? Which dept?


Teacher Identity

Attention to the lifeworld of the student and the faculty living with, through and in this program
                                                                                                       6


Technology in Education

There appears to be no mechanism for quality control across multiple sections; no safeguard for
equivalence across multiple sections. Students may be learning vastly different content from
section to section.

How do we assess students’ competence with technologies across multiple and potentially quite
diverse applications of these modules?

How do we ensure that there are enough instructors with a technology background and experience
to service all the subject area courses? The multitude of required sections for subject areas may
well exceed the available expertise within the faculty as not all subject areas specialists are well-
versed in educational technology use and there is the possibility that some may not be willing to
use technology at all. Given the current budget issues at the University of Alberta, there appear to
be no additional budgetary resources to address this shortfall.

The technology descriptors associated with different courses within the program lack specificity
and could be interpreted as suggesting a rather superficial, survey coverage of technologies rather
than the more in-depth skills and knowledge that will be usable for the students as they move into
professional practice.


Counselling Psychology

In the proposed program, we see little explicit recognition (at least a serious under-representation)
of the importance of the psycho-social context that learners bring to the educational setting. Our
expertise leads us to attend specifically to relationship-building and communication issues with
students and teachers which form the foundation from which learning takes place (including group
dynamics). Educational psychology and counselling psychology are the bedrock of addressing these
issues. While these are not “teachable” subjects in the AB Education sense of the term, they offer the
skills necessary to support effective learning. Further, it is the psycho-social challenges of the
learning environment – the “extra-to-teaching” duties that are particularly challenging for many
classroom teachers and which are thought to contribute substantially to the very high attrition
rates of beginning teachers (This was an ongoing concern voiced by the ATA representative on
UAAC for four years when Dr. Denise Larsen was on UACC. Further, we understand that this is an
escalating problem given our recent inquires on the issue).

Finally, counselling psychology has an important role to play in educating teachers about how to
address the stresses and anxieties inherent in their often high-stakes role as teachers. Sustainable
and effective engagement is a serious teacher issue. Certainly improvements to various aspects of
the program (e.g., curriculum and instruction courses) can help to support teacher effectiveness
and I am fully in support of teaching improvements which may appear to be needed in this regard.
However, there are also aspects of teaching (likely to be experienced especially acutely early in
                                                                                                     7


career) that are highly stress inducing. Counselling psychology is uniquely equipped to assist pre-
service teachers from the outset of their careers in learning to effectively manage these stresses
while supporting a healthy and lasting career lifestyle. Our introduction to Counselling course
(EDPY 442) provides teachers with critical relationship-building and communication skills, as well
as core skills in navigating challenging and stressful situations in working with others and in one’s
self-care process. This course is not included in the new undergraduate program in any capacity or
even in modularized form.


Concentrations

All non-ed courses? Students have consistently told us that the courses that help them finally begin
to understand subject matter knowledge are EDEL courses.

It has been argued that courses not taught in the program/faculty can be taken outside of the
Faculty, such as development courses taken in the Psychology department. Has the committee
considered the distinction between the content of educational psychology and psychology courses,
with the former linking psychological content to teaching and learning processes and to
developmental outcomes, which are key to teacher competency and that are central in the current
undergraduate program? This principle holds true for technology courses taken outside of the
Faculty in that the content of Computing Science courses may not easily be applicable to education
settings.

Has the committee considered the major logistical problems with off-loading of core educational
competencies to other Faculties/Departments (Psychology, Computing Science) without
preliminary consultation? For example, it was suggested that students take developmental
psychology and/or technology courses outside of our Faculty. These departments may not be in a
position to accommodate large numbers of students.
                                                                                                         8



Program Organization
Coordination and Collaboration

Currently, our 305 instructors follow a shared course outline, use the same texts, and incorporate
very similar practices within their classes, however, as a course that is taught largely by sessionals
(in addition to usually being taught by several faculty members), due to the many sections of
classes needed, the time and structures needed for course coordination are significant, in our
existing 3 credit one course structure. I cannot imagine how coordination could occur with the
proposed structure

This program requires an unrealistic level of collaboration in order to deliver it effectively
           o We all already complain about how many meetings we have to attend
           o True collaboration is an incredible amount of work (division of labour is most
              efficient)
           o The level of complexity in coordinating multiple faculty in order to develop content
              and then to expect that faculty will call on each other to provide guest lectures,
              depending on the expertise required, simply will fall apart from a logistical point of
              view.
                    In this proposal we are expecting approx 100 faculty and somewhere in the
                      range of 200 sessionals and graduate teaching assistants to come together (I
                      noted that we only had about 65 people present at Thursday’s meeting, this
                      means that we were missing at least 50 faculty and even more sessionals
                      and graduate students – I suspect this is a pretty good indication of people’s
                      priorities with respect to collaborating and working “together”).
                    It will not be enough to expect that once we’ve been through this once or
                      twice that our jobs will become any easier – more than half of the instructors
                      will change every year (sessionals and GTAs).
                    Courses requiring multiple instructors with different expertise will
                      degenerate fairly quickly into examples of division of labour rather than
                      collaboration.

Demands of collaboration – do we have the resources?

Who will be coordinating between small interrelated courses? (In elementary, we do this
voluntarily in subject areas, but the workload is manageable – as it would not be in the new model,
from what I can see.)

The potential of having to team teach all the time. [dislike]
                                                                                                    9


Having participated in the successful development and implementation of our strongly integrated
collaborative program in middle years teacher education, I can attest to the additional work and
coordination effort required to do so.

Like potential for integration, but concerned with pragmatics

Will there be PD for Faculty to deal with these new specialized areas across curriculum?
         for example with the disappearance of a *3 computing requirement, how will this critical
        digital pedagogy be addressed by everyone across the curriculum.

Loss of instructor autonomy because forced-collaborative teaching does not appeal or make sense.
Alternative: identify faculty members who would be interested and create a few 3-credit courses
that are cross departmental/collaborative.


One and Two Credits

One or two credit courses, from my perspective, would simply eliminate any time for engaging in
practice or other apprenticeship opportunities. Within three credit structures, some of us have set
up projects which allow for our students to work in local elementary classrooms (e.g. the 404
classes engage in literacy projects related to assignments, in Garneau School, St. Monica's and other
elementary programs, and my 305 class last year worked with the Child Study Centre
kindergarten). I cannot see these sorts of engagements as possible working within a two credit
structure, both due to limitations of time and that of the need to compress the required material

2 credit courses will result in cramming of 3 credit material

Why cut everything into so many small portions? If we are running out of room to put “content”
then we should consider adding another year to our teacher ed program, not trying to cram more
into the space we currently have

How will students who complete Year 3 with us, but then choose to transfer to another institution
use these 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3 credit courses?

Will 2 credit courses be scheduled once a week for 2 hours; what are the implications of having one
week between each class meeting?

The potential of an overly modularized program (1 credit modules) that sit independently of one
another.

Given that most subject area courses are reliant on sessional instructors, we will also likely
encounter great challenges with staffing many small credit courses. (Many of the sessionals are
choosing to teach because they enjoy maintaining contact and involvement in the field – if we
                                                                                                    10


require more, smaller credit courses I doubt we will retain the people we have, at least in many
cases).

Fragmentation was identified as a large problem in earlier program committee work and feedback,
so it is essential that we not compound this problem. The proposed program looks even more
fragmented than the current program for our students. When students are faced with an array of
courses with varying credits, they will certainly focus their attention on the “weightier” courses and
neglect the *1 and *2 ones, particularly if those courses are unfocused and have assignments that
are not clear.

Concern with possible solo-thinking developing  with the use of small units

The move away from standard 3-credit courses because it basically redefines the roles for students
and instructors. No one will understand what a 1-credit course looks like or what will be expected
(no one = students, faculty, FEC, the registrar, etc.). Alternative: 3-credit courses in which
“integration of certain topics” is stipulated.

Have we considered the implication of moving to a modularized approach for transferability to
graduate programs (or even other undergraduate programs) here and elsewhere? The move to a
modularized teaching approach would be inconsistent with how the rest of the university operates
and how almost all universities in Canada operate, causing major logistical problems for
implementation and transfer of students from different universities/program areas over time and
even for international transfer programs

Teaching in short modules within multiple classes may not allow students enough time to develop
the rapport with professors that enable them to approach professors about career options and
advice about graduate studies. We are concerned that this could lead to diminished entry into our
graduate programs.


Coherence

In looking at the new program as a whole, I also found myself wondering about what sort of
philosophical/theoretical framework supports the new program, as I am unable to see a coherent
framework. If I can't see coherence, I wonder if our students will identify it?

Student experience would seem more fragmented. Will a student diligently attend a one credit
course?

Agree that diffusion of themes may result in them not being adequately addressed.

The format depends on every faculty being experts in multiple fields (not subject areas, but key
teaching and learning areas). Are we not specialists, and should not our student benefit from our
specializations?
                                                                                                      11



While we really like the term-based inquiring question, once more we are concerned these will be
lost in the complexity of working this out.

We note that CIC has attempted to provide a logical thematic sequence from term to term but we
see a number of the components as still fragmented, especially the language and literacy area. We
also wondered why “numeracy” was singled out, as this is not a component in CFC. Term 3 seems
particularly problematic in relation to how units would be integrated across the term.

Workload

Depending on how many of the currently fuzzy details are interpreted at the end, the change will
lead to either a lot or to somewhat more work – it is definitely not workload neutral at least from
my point of view

How much extra work this creates will have a lot to do with how 18 credit “Concentrations” are
defined and whether Secondary minors have to be teachable or not – for example, can we offer an
18 credit SpEd concentration?

If courses are build by committees, as suggested by Dr. Wallace, this definitely adds to the workload
a significant number of extra meetings, assuming that we keep the definition of a teaching load (in
terms of credits) the same

Alternative delivery is not workload neutral but requires considerable amount of extra time to
build in the beginning, and extra technical resources to support on the long run

FEC needs acknowledge changes/responsibilities. Will teaching of more courses be acknowledged?

Too many courses of less than 3 credits may require faculty to teach more courses each year, thus
increasing the workload and resulting in inequities in relation to faculty members who teach
primarily in the grad programs.

2 credit courses – What are the implications for sessional instructors’ salaries?

May courses (i.e., 7-8 courses vs 4) requires more prep, marking, etc

Logistics
         Uncertainty of faculty workload, how this will “work” in practice
         This needs to be addressed now, not later
         Without considering this immediately, faculty and student buy-in is uncertain
         Fragmented program  fragmented for faculty and students

Worklife – time for teaching vs. time for writing. Where are the spaces for writing.
                                                                                                    12



What happens to teaching loads with minors disappearing?

We are also concerned about the potential unevenness in workload assignments across the
Elementary and Secondary programs, since the size of the former, and our need to coordinate
Elementary courses in collaborative programs and ATEP’s, requires much more course
coordination than the Secondary program.

In addition to the issue of coordination there is the question of how teaching assignments will be
calculated, since teaching three 2-credit courses takes much more time than teaching two 3-credit
courses. Sessional instructors are very concerned about this, as are faculty. We understand that
workload calculations may be the task of the Steering Committee, not CIC, but we would ask to see
it specially addressed.

The issue of how workload will be assigned to instructors is key and has not been addressed. It is
not clear if there will be primary instructors for each course who coordinate all other instructors
and from which department these instructors will originate. It is also unclear how modular teaching
assignments will interface with our current 4-course teaching responsibilities, given than modules
are smaller teaching units. There is no plan for the transition from old program to new program.
There is no formalized budget that ensures resources are available for both the new program
structure but also for the transition period.

How will the modularized teaching approach support autonomous teaching in a research-intensive
university? It allows little room for faculty to really teach to their own expertise and to manage
their own scheduling and workload commitments between teaching, research, and service.

How will the modularized teaching approach affect workload (i.e., coordination of courses, multiple
sessions)? Some of these workload demands include increased time for collaboration with other
instructors across multiple course sections, increased time for coordination with administration for
scheduling and room /resource allocation. We have grave concerns that the lack of autonomy in
juggling a complex teaching schedule with research and service demands might result in faculty
members’ inability to flexibly control their workflow.


Minors

Minors, such as SpEd minor, are removed from the calculations towards 120 credits in the
elementary program, but not all minors can be cancelled altogether. For example, we still have to
provide either SpEd diploma or certificate, or minor, or all three, unless we want to antagonize
Alberta Education and most school boards.

What exactly is a “concentration” as opposed to minor? What is the difference for students in terms
of marketing their skills and getting a job?

Secondary program had minors left; are these teachable minors only?
                                                                                                  13



Keep the minors – do not like the large introduction to teaching.

We cannot accomplish offer a strong research-based program if we are reduced to offering
minimum credit courses at a basic, introductory level. Furthermore, the attempt to steer students
into diploma programs is a very risky strategy, as there has been no indication that students would
seek to delay the beginning of their careers. As was pointed out at our recent Faculty discussion,
learners need to have some choice, and the minor specializations are an important aspect of choice
for students to develop expertise for beginning their teaching careers.

Abandonment of our minor specializations will also negatively affect our graduate programs.
Although we attract students from many nations, our primary population of graduate students is
Albertan. Our graduate programs will suffer tremendously if our Master’s students enter with only
a *2 course as a foundation for specialized study at the graduate level.

We are deeply concerned that our integrative Minors (Early Childhood on campus and the Middle
Years programs in collabs) would be cut in the new program. We understand that the potential for
Diplomas has been discussed as a way to continue offering Minors, but we would need to see more
evidence that sufficient students will return to take them and that resources would be available.

Will grads from the revised program be competitive? Are employers seeking generalists? A loss of
elementary minors means the loss of specialist graduates.


Elementary Subject Areas

The Elementary program appears to consist of a collection of subject area courses that just parallels
the current structure. This is problematic from several perspectives
           o 16 credits is offered in place of the current 24 credits for minors. This will
                encourage current content from 3-credit courses to be migrated to 2-credit courses
                    neither instructors nor students will be happy
                    Instructors will complain they don’t have enough time to teach their content
                    Students will complain that far too much is being put into 2 credit courses
                    Learning objectives related to managing the learning environment will be
                        superficially addressed because it would displace 3-credit content forced
                        into a 2-credit course.
           o I suggest we give the block of 16 credits to our colleagues in elementary
                Education and ask them to develop a program that can be delivered within
                those credits which is holistic and best meets the needs of generalist new
                teachers.

How will technology, assessment, and classroom management be crammed into 2 credit EDEL
courses?
                                                                                                     14


2 credit EDEL course – we had these in the 1990s and were glad to see them go – gave student
inadequate preparation, instructors were frustrated how did you study these old 2 credit
courses, why did you set aside feedback that was gathered on these 2 credit courses, and how will
bringing back what did not work in the past represent a new vision for our program?

How can students who are ‘turned on’ by a 3xx course able to pursue this interest at a 4xx level?
Give students Ed Options and lots of them! What are the implications for intersession when you
have this sequence?

Where are the EDEL 4xx courses? We get rave reviews from students about the quality and
usefulness of these courses; pushing them into a 5th year is ill-advised and based on what appears
to be unsupported assumptions about students’ enthusiasm for a 5th year.

I am very concerned with the 2 credit component of the curriculum courses. Having previously
taught in a University where I had 6 credits to teach the equivalent of EDEL 305, the biggest plus in
my teaching for both students and instructor was having the time to engage students in meaningful
learning experiences (often structured around assignments) which related to my research projects
and involved students in hands-on projects in schools (e.g. one-to-one relationships with students).
I don’t see this as being possible in 2 credit courses.

I have concerns about 2 credit courses in the EDEL program – now have technology, assessment,
inclusion, managing the learning environment added to with less credits.

Pedagogical knowledge (elementary) was hit with triple-jeopardy: no minors, 2-credit courses, and
an increased mandate (technology, assessment, infusion of diversity). The department needs to
work out for itself what the *21 will look like, as suggested by the Chair of EDPS.

I am very concerned with the reduction from 3 credits to 2 credits for the subject area methods
courses in the Elementary Ed program.

I do not feel that the courses on “literacy/numeracy” and “curriculum integration” need to be stand
alone courses. I also think credits could be reduced in some other courses in order to maintain the
methods courses at 3 credits.

More fundamentally, we are concerned about the apparent change in the role of instructors in the
new program. Our students learn by being inspired by great teachers who share their passion and
expertise for particular topics. Our teachers are creative, explore, and take risks. Based on what we
see in the model, the program is too prescriptive to allow for this to happen. The lack of flexibility
within learning units and across them is compounded by the cutbacks to Minors and Options.

We do not see sufficient provision here for Elementary pre-service teachers to gain sufficient depth
in any one area. We wondered what the discussions had been with respect to moving particular
topics into the first year or two, allowing for higher-level study in Arts or Science courses in years 3
and 4, and/or allowing depth through Options and Minors.
                                                                                                  15



Outcomes

Some courses reflect so many outcomes I question that any could be dealt with in any depth.


Implementation

I recommend that we identify and rank our most important components and that we move to
implement those incrementally as our resources permit
          o We’ve already started this process; we can become even more deliberate by phasing
              in new aspects of our program which are consistent with the principles document,
              the Curriculum Framework, and the work of CIC.
          o This will allow groups of people to come together who are committed to working
              together to achieve a common set of goals.

CIC Terms of Reference spoken about at length. UAAC’s role/actions were questioned.

Who would administer, be responsible for and control this new program?

In our view, the Proposed Program Model does not represent an implementation plan but rather an
enhanced program framework. There are a number of aspects of the model that are not sufficiently
developed to allow us to proceed with implementation.

The transition period from old to new program could very well entail overlap of old and new course
delivery. Has the committee considered how we will be able to simultaneously run two structurally
very different programs?

Lecture/Section Size

Concern: All 1st term students in large lectures

Language and literacy course in big sections is a problem. Big groups and seminars may not be a
solution. Maybe section of 40.

Some concerns over large class lecture format
           o While some can teach them effectively it can be taxing at 3 lectures/week
           o Some concerns over large class lecture format
Large lecture
         instructional problems (especially in the initial years)
         Booking of rooms (large rooms are block booked)
         Solution: Team teaching between ed. Seminar and large lecture
                                                                                                    16


Will there even be access to large lecture venues in term 1?

Term1 large lectures with students of all/many curriculum majors is not easy to work with.


Post-Undergraduate

The Faculty has strong and vibrant graduate programs, and is distinctive from other local
institutions because of its research focus. With a modular approach to content delivery, will we be
able to deliver sufficient depth to prepare our potential graduate students?

We have strong concerns that as a teaching and research intensive university, a research
component has not been well-represented in the revised program. In addition, how will the
modularized approach foster in-depth discussion of content-area research?


Many graduate programs require certain amount of credits in undergraduate educational
psychology (or psychology) courses. How will the proposed program prepare our undergraduate
students for our department’s large and competitive graduate programs? (For example, under the
proposed program, they will have fewer or no credits in development, counseling, assessment,
basic educational psychology, special education.) Students’ ability to register as psychologists will
be affected (i.e., they need a certain number of undergraduate educational psychology or
psychology courses).


Overall

Provide more options for students

What is the overarching question? Where does this fit in larger scheme? With, for example: global,
historical, indigenous, society?

Lack of space for autonomy in the courses. A technological approach to the courses, as to what
course content may be.

Absence of ed options – sol’n - restore credits to options 6 cr.

Rhetoric inquiry-based teaching, learning
        Skeptical
        Solution: e.g., writing of a monograph on inquiry
               o Inclusive of various modes of education research
        Solution: include grad-like focus on research
               o Inclusive of various worldviews
                                                                                                     17



Concern with the size of our program (3,500 students, relative to the other programs we are in
competition with now and in the future), and we seem to be hemmed in and constrained by the
number of students/faculty which no matter how we shift students around, it is still deckchairs, we
still would not be able to compete...  numbers matter.

Lack of “white” space “open” space

Lack of Ed options fails to acknowledge diverse backgrounds of our students and their diverse
teaching aspirations.

With the abundance of courses that will have a subject specific tone to them, are there going to be
suitable instructors to fill these voids

We do not believe that the proposed elementary program can be delivered with the existing
resources in our faculty. This belief is based our experience with previous B.Ed reforms, the
development of the collaborative programs and ATEP’s, and the coordination of seven required
courses in the B.Ed program.

The proposed program model does not reflect the reality of some students’ lives. We also wonder if
provision is being made for continuity for students who attend Spring and Summer session classes.

University education involves allowing people to be diverse in their interests, curiosities and
inclinations, and typically involves choices and options. How will a revised program that involves
no choices or options serve our own best developmental and educational principles?

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:2/25/2012
language:
pages:17