Exploring the conceptual frameworks

1. Exploring the conceptual frameworks of Wisconsin’s teacher preparation institutions

2. Compelling Question How do we [Wisconsin’s educational preparation programs] define, operationalize and measure ‘quality’? Quality Matters conference (2006)

3. Why ask this question?Why ask now? • PI 34 Components • Relevant Policies and Practices • Conceptual Framework* • Institutional Evaluation/Performance • Institutional Assessment System • Institutional Title II Reports • Systematic Collaboration • *”All work starts here, around a shared vision.” • Nick Michelli, 2006

4. Original Research Team • Moreen Carvan and Martha Combs (Marian University) • Mary Diez, Kathy Lake, Nancy Jelen (Alverno College) • Sally Schumacher (Carthage College) • Peg Finders (UW-Lacrosse) • Barbara Bales (UW-Milwaukee) • Rhoda Robinson (UW-Superior) • Katy Heyning (UW-Whitewater) • Francine Tompkins (UWSA) • Ken Zeichner (UW-Madison)

5. Guiding Principles • The central purpose … to improve student learning, PK-16. • Create a culture of evidence directed towards continuous improvement • To Improve practice, influence policy, and inform accreditation and program approval. • Provide a profile of Wisconsin’s educator preparation practices • Accountability should be owned and controlled by the profession • Shared responsibility(Quality Matters conference, 2006) • To reveal the observations of this work (Research Team, 2006)

6. We are using a two-stage, grounded theory to reveal the theory of action in the conceptual frameworks put forward by Wisconsin’s educator preparing-institutions. We conducted an iterative review of available frameworks to clarify the purpose of this research, the reasonable and ethical scope, and the most appropriate methodology. The two-stage grounded research approach emerged as a result of this intensive, evidence-based dialogue between researchers. Methodology

7. Methodology cont. • Stage One: What is the description of teacher quality that is explicitly articulated in the conceptual frameworks. • Work with campuses to get the most recent written documentation. • Focus on explicit concepts, elements and underlying beliefs expressed in the documents.

8. Methodology cont. • Develop summaries of those explicitly described concepts, elements and underlying beliefs. • Member-checking – is this a fair representation of your conceptual framework? • Analyze summaries and identify specific patterns that emerge across conceptual frameworks.

9. 12 Themes Emerge from the Data CF Themes as Coding Nodes. doc Analyzing these Data Conceptual Frameworks from returned to each institution and resubmitted ? Publicly-available Conceptual Frameworks from each institution Initial look by CF Work Group Second look by CF Work Group Another look using your Questions

10. Questions to Participants • What is the value/purpose of the conceptual framework? • How is it being used at your institution? By whom? • What benefits/limitations of sharing information about each program’s conceptual framework? • What compelling questions would you like to see addressed? Why are these questions important? • Is there anything that concerns you about this work? • Other?

11. Request for Proposals* • Statement of outcomes • Brief description of why these outcomes are of value and how they will add to the current knowledge base • Summary of key activities • Description of how activities will be evaluated • Budget narrative and line item detailing ($3000 max) • Plans for dissemination *Submit proposals to: Francine Tompkins ftompkins@uwsa.edu on or before December 15, 2008