THE
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL REPORT
December 2002
Revised March 2004 following consultation with USC
The
There are differences of opinion regarding how schools need to change in order to meet the new and complex demands placed on them by society. However, all agree that schools must employ qualified and competent teachers in order to be successful. The question remaining concerns the manner in which one prepares such a teacher. In its February 2001 report entitled “Teacher Preparation Research: Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Recommendations,” the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy looked for answers that research might provide to such critical questions about teacher preparation.
The report indicated that well-timed, coordinated, and extensive clinical training is important and could have a powerful influence on the preparation of a teacher.
It makes sense to provide preservice teachers a preparation program that directly links the university components of the teacher preparation program to day-to-day life in a school or school district, that affords university faculty the opportunity to directly collaborate with school district cooperating teachers, that permits preservice students to have extensive clinical experiences in school settings, and to routinely reflect on those experiences with faculty and cooperating teachers. The nurturing and extended nature of the clinical experience not only provides preservice teachers opportunities to learn the skills of teaching, but also to become a part of the culture of the school district community, and gain experience with the stakeholder subsystems that impact schools.
During the fall of 1994, the Delaware Department of Public
Instruction (DPI) invited proposals from school districts for a $35,000
planning grant for the purpose of establishing a
The University had long been associated with the Holmes
Group, an association of colleges and universities dedicated to reforming the
way tomorrow’s teachers are prepared. Consequently accepting the Holmes
requirement was natural for the
The strategic planning opportunity provided by the planning
grant turned out to be a key factor in the decision by the
The strategic planning process concluded with the following recommendations regarding the initial model for the southern Delaware ETE program:
·
The first two years of the program will be
offered through the Parallel Program in
·
The final two years of the program will be
clinical in nature and courses will be offered on site at the
·
Courses will be consistent with the
· The Elementary Teacher Education approved program course syllabi will be modified cooperatively by university and school district faculties to link the more theoretical instruction with classroom practices in cooperating teacher classrooms.
The
The primary fiscal
support for the program comes from CHEP and the State of
The
The district has provided direct fiscal support through the
use of federal Goals 2000 funds. Additionally, the district provides the space
for the teacher education classroom and offices for faculty and has assumed
facility support costs. Critical to the program is the commitment and time
provided by
State of
The State of
This partnership has resulted in many benefits to both the university and the school district. From a pragmatic perspective, the district will have the opportunity to observe future teachers in action in their classrooms. It has the opportunity to recruit candidates whose skills and abilities are known before these candidates enter the job market. The stature of the district and its staff increases because of its association with an exemplary teacher preparation program. Opportunities for additional linkages or partnerships with the university increase as the university recognizes the leadership and talents of district staff.
The benefits of this partnership to the university are many.
The obvious one is that preservice candidates spend
considerable time developing classroom practices that are beneficial to the
education of children. It also enhances CHEP outreach to
The Milford PDS attracts teacher candidates wishing to stay
within their community rather than move or travel to
Table 1 summarizes the demographic and academic characteristics of preservice teachers enrolled in the Milford PDS Elementary Teacher Education Program as of May 2002.
|
|
20-41 |
|
|
Median Age |
21 |
|
|
Percent Living at Home |
100% |
|
|
Credits Taken Per Semester |
17-23 |
|
|
Percent Totally Responsible for Tuition and Living Expenses |
36% |
|
|
Percent Partially Responsible for Tuition and Living Expenses |
60% |
|
|
Percent Not Responsible for Tuition or Living Expenses |
4% |
|
|
|
2.9-4.0 |
|
|
Average GPA |
3.5 |
|
|
Average Praxis I Score |
222 |
|
|
Percent Minority |
9.5% |
|
The Milford PDS is comprised of two full-time faculty and 7 adjunct instructors. This allows for a favorable student/teacher ratio. Results from the candidate surveys indicate that many of the preservice teachers desire and appreciate small classes.
Faculty at the PDS have a variety of roles. Faculty teach courses, observe students in the field during both junior and senior years, and advise all of the students. In addition, they maintain professional relationships with district teachers, principals and administrative personnel. This has several positive outcomes. First, the single point of contact with faculty enhances communication, efficiency, and consistency. Instructors have the same expectations for all of the courses. This makes it easier for students to understand what they are to do and how they will be evaluated. Faculty have a holistic view of students regarding their strengths, weaknesses, needs and personal considerations. Instructors can assess students’ understanding of theory taught as they watch it demonstrated in the field. Misconceptions, the need for additional instruction or exceptional understanding can easily be observed. Armed with this information, instructors return to their classroom and revise their instruction for re-teaching, enriching or moving on to another topic to better meet the needs of their students. Second, instructors are able to have more in-depth discussions by including the field placement as a primary source of information. This allows for a strong connection between theory and practice. Instructors also incorporate methods and curriculum observed in the classroom by cooperating teachers in their instruction, helping students to better understand what they are seeing. Finally, instructors advise and support students. Instructors know who is struggling in the field, something that can not always be seen in the written lesson plan turned in as part of a course requirement. They then share this information with all faculty members and work together to meet the needs of the student.
A major role of the faculty is to promote reflection by the students. Students are asked to reflect on their daily teaching in writing in the form of lesson plan reflections and journals, and in class discussions. Students are made to feel safe in sharing both their successes and failures in the classroom, each seen as a valuable learning tool for themselves and others. In addition, faculty provide daily opportunities for students to meet with them to discuss their teaching and learning. Students are encouraged to talk with an instructor after each teaching experience to analyze the experience and revise plans when appropriate. After classroom observations, students meet with faculty members to debrief and set goals for future teaching. Indicators of candidate reflection include surveys, interviews, journals, group discussions, and other evidence of changes in reflection, thinking, dispositions, and teaching practices.
The courses and program requirements offered at the
The Milford PDS uses a variety of techniques to provide a
unique and high quality teacher education program. Although the courses,
and the content of those courses are the same as those on the
All methods courses are taught at both the primary and middle school levels with a semester-long field experience in each. This allows students to gain experience teaching all content areas at both levels.
Two clinical faculty members teach the education courses with seven adjunct instructors providing instruction in content areas. This approach yields several positive outcomes. First, instructors are able to avoid duplication of content. Second, the small size of the faculty and their teaching of multiple courses allow for integration of the curriculum. Faculty can easily plan lessons and assignments that fit with other courses. Complex, common assignments can meet the requirements of several courses. Some examples include:
· Lessons planned and implemented for the literacy, mathematics and science methods classes included strategies from Instructional Strategies and Reflective Practice courses (EDUC 390) and assessment methods and tools from Educational Assessment (EDUC 451). When the teacher candidates planned and implemented a lesson, they were assessed in three different courses.
· Teacher candidates are learning how to create an integrated unit. This project is being worked on in every class taken by the preservice teachers. This allows the teacher candidates to better understand and learn this process. It also helps them to make connections across subjects instead of treating them as separate entities.
Finally, the faculty is able to assess the knowledge gained in a particular course at the end of each semester and use the information to adjust instruction in the subsequent semesters. Because courses continue through several semesters, instructors are able to revise syllabi based on formative evaluations from the previous semester.
Field Experiences
Field placements constitute one of the strongest components
of the PDS program. During the freshman
and sophomore years, while enrolled in courses in the Georgetown Parallel
Program, students spend approximately 62 hours observing, tutoring and
assisting teachers in both primary and middle school classrooms. Time in the field differs considerably during
the junior and senior years. During the
two junior block semesters,
Year Regular ETE
|
Freshman and Sophomore |
25 hours |
62 hours |
|
Junior |
128-159 hours |
500 hours |
|
Senior |
18 weeks |
29 weeks |
Students begin their junior year by attending district inservice workshops and workdays with their cooperating teachers in primary schools. They observe firsthand how teachers begin the school year and set up their classrooms. They attend faculty meetings, learn about procedures and curriculum for the new year and see (and assist with) all of the preparations teachers must make. They are in classrooms on the first day of school, observing and participating in this very special day. During the first week, they are able to observe how teachers start the year, establish rules and routines, begin to create a strong classroom community, and begin teaching. Their first university course assignment involves writing a paper on how they would start the school year. They remain in the classroom two full days a week until winter vacation. In the spring, juniors move to the middle school, observing and teaching until late May. In all placements, students are assisting the teacher and planning and teaching lessons in all content areas.
The organization of the PDS has allowed the UD faculty to meet the needs of individual students as related to field experience. During the first two years of the Milford PDS program, six of the students have needed more time in the field to develop their teaching skills. The faculty has been able to place students in the field during winter session to gain this experience.
Informal surveys were administered to students each semester during the first two years. Responses to survey questions point out that the prospect of spending more time in schools and classrooms is a major consideration for students when selecting the Milford PDS. Similarly, students indicate they believe they have made positive contributions assisting teachers and children while gaining valuable experience and confidence (Appendices A &B).
Due to variable credits, seniors at the PDS take classes
throughout their senior year. Their
internships are for the entire year with the first semester placement in the
middle school and the second semester in the primary school. They participate in both special education
and regular education classrooms. Because of the time spent in schools during
their junior internships, many students in their senior year take over full
classroom responsibilities very early in the placement. In addition to completing course work during
the senior year, students complete the
Relationship With The
Teachers in the
Communication between the PDS and the teachers is accomplished in many ways. University faculty choose the teachers working with the students. Cooperating teachers receive an orientation at the beginning of each placement. Here they receive a handbook outlining in great detail the program, assignments students must complete during the placement, an explanation of their responsibilities, and assessment forms. Throughout each semester teachers receive electronic newsletters through e-mail that include reviews of what the preservice teachers have been learning in their university classes, reminders of upcoming lessons and activities teacher candidates will be doing in the classroom, answers to frequently asked questions, and thanks for their work. Finally, teachers are asked to complete a written survey and invited to attend a feedback seminar to reflect on the semester and make suggestions for changing the program. Cooperating teachers overwhelmingly indicate that preservice teachers assist in the classroom in many ways. These include: helping children learn, providing individual children assistance, developing and implementing quality lesson plans, stimulating new ideas, and assisting with classroom management. Furthermore, they indicate that they appreciate the opportunity to help prepare tomorrow’s teachers (Appendix B).
The University of Delaware/Milford School District partnership allows for learning to be mutually beneficial. Students learn from their cooperating teachers by observing, teaching under their supervision and planning and implementing lessons. Teachers are also learning from students. Many of the cooperating teachers have invited university students to demonstrate innovative teaching ideas they have read about. Examples include literature circles, hands-on activities such as simulations and projects, and lessons that integrate several school subjects. Several teachers have incorporated new methods or activities presented by the students into their own daily teaching. Six teachers indicated that they viewed new ideas introduced by the preservice teachers positively. Cooperating teachers have asked UD faculty for information and materials on strategies first presented by the university students.
Some professional development has been provided to district
teachers by UD faculty. Monthly meetings
facilitated by UD faculty are held in two of the primary schools to discuss
writing topics. UD faculty helped set up
model classrooms and discussions on teaching strategies. Teachers have worked one-on-one with faculty
discussing improvements in their teaching practices. Workshops have been offered to both teachers
and parents. Finally, several graduate
education classes have been offered in
Conclusions
Essentially the University of Delaware/Milford School
District Program has been implemented as initially planned. The reactions and
responses from students, cooperating teachers,
The goal of significantly increasing the amount of time students spend in a clinical setting was accomplished. The quality of these field experiences was enhanced by the cooperative relationships and direct lines of communication established between the university and school district faculties. The clinical preparation of preservice teachers in a single school district permits our preservice students to become members of the culture of the school district community and accepted into every phase of the operation of schools – staff development programs, parent/teacher conferences, curriculum planning, etc.
The partnership between the
Another goal of the program was to identify opportunities to model the delivery of university courses using an interdisciplinary approach. This task was accomplished to the degree that preservice students routinely developed interdisciplinary learning units and presented them in a manner that permitted cooperating teachers to become more knowledgeable about this strategy.
When a clinical program such as the Milford PDS teacher
education option implemented in a school district, we want to be sure that the
experiences provided to preservice students are of
high quality. Mentors as well as university faculty, have a significant impact
on the preparation of tomorrow’s teachers. The overall quality of a school
district can never be measured completely by children’s test scores. However,
in spite of a high percentage of students in free and reduced lunch programs,
the results of the most recent state testing program indicated that all
As a result of the review by the USC, we have agreed to make some catalog changes to better reflect the nature of the Southern Delaware ETE program. The program will be titled and described as follows:
Following
the description of the honors B.S., create another section that is titled
"Southern Delaware Elementary Teacher and Special Education"
Degree: Bachelor of Science in Education
Major:
Elementary Teacher Education/Special Education
University and Major requirements are the same as for the Elementary Teacher
Education program. However, this program
differs in that students are required to seek dual certification in Special
Education and discipline area requirements are selected for an integrated
discipline area rather than a single discipline area. This program also includes more K-8
school-based requirements that are designed in cooperation with the
One of the most successful components of the
Many believe the ultimate success of a teacher in the
classroom can be measured by the success of their students on standardized
achievement measures. It is not the intent of this report to argue the merits
of this position. Nationally this continues to be a contentious issue. The preservice students in the
Another goal of the
Although the term “partnership” was
articulated early and often by University and school district representatives,
the ultimate strength of this partnership exceeds all expectations.
Early in the planning process the school district, in particular the
University faculty both taught the courses in the program and also supervised
field experiences and student teaching. Although serving in this
multidimensional role is often taxing for faculty, it did result in increased
coordination and cooperation between University and
Given the success of the PDS partnership with the
A school district or school contemplating a partnership with the University to offer a PDS program should pursue a strategic planning process to clearly define the overall mission of the school and the role of a PDS program in the school. A decision to partner with the University should be made by the full administrative and teaching staff of the school.
Although the Milford PDS model has been successful to date,
a school or school district contemplating this type of partnership should
jointly plan the program with University faculty and not try to simply
duplicate the
The use of variable credit to promote preservice student learning, heavy classroom experience, and systematic reflection was very successful and should be considered for any clinically based program.
The multidimensional role of University faculty – instructor, field experience coordinator, student teaching coordinator, and advisor – should be considered as a strength and a challenge in the development of PDS programs.
If the structure of a new program includes the role of
administrator, consideration should be given to identifying an individual in
the school district to serve in that role. Although not originally planned for
in the Milford PDS, the first
Although the issue of teacher performance can be sensitive,
some type of follow-up of PDS graduates should be conducted with employers to
gain additional knowledge about the short and long term success of
Student Surveys
Student Surveys
Informal student surveys were administered twice to the first and second cohorts of students to determine why students chose to attend the Milford PDS program instead of other teacher education programs. Students responded in narrative form and could include more than one answer in a category. The responses indicated in the following tables were extracted from those narrative responses.
1. Explain why you choose the Milford ETE program.
2. What do you see as the major advantages or strengths of this program?
3. What are your concerns and fears about the program?
4. What are your fears and concerns about teaching?
Table 1: Cumulative Survey Results—Fall 2000, Spring, 2001, Fall 2001, Spring 2002
(N=29)
Question 1- Reasons for choosing
|
Reasons for Choice |
Number |
|
Affordable |
5 |
|
Closer to home |
21 |
|
Experience in the schools |
30 |
|
|
4 |
|
Small class size |
13 |
Question 2-Advantages and strengths
|
Advantages and Strengths |
Number |
|
Closer to home |
4 |
|
Teaching lessons |
12 |
|
Experience in schools |
44 |
|
Bond among classmates |
9 |
|
Small class size |
12 |
Question 3-Concerns and fears about the program
|
Concerns and Fears About The Program |
Number |
|
Expenses—Books |
4 |
|
Difficult to work around class schedule |
4 |
|
Last minute scheduling of classes |
2 |
|
New program |
7 |
|
None |
7 |
|
Heavy workload |
22 |
|
Unsure of whether cooperating teacher will be helpful |
7 |
Question 4- Concerns and fears about teaching
|
Concerns and Fears About Teaching |
Number |
|
None |
12 |
|
Might not be prepared |
3 |
|
Might not meet own expectations |
6 |
|
Classroom management issues |
6 |
|
Dealing with parents |
3 |
|
Writing lesson plans |
3 |
|
Presenting lessons |
4 |
Field
Placement Survey Responses
Informal student surveys were administered to all students after each semester. Students responded in narrative form and could include more than one reason or answer to each question. Students responded to the following questions:
Table 2: Fall 2000, Spring 2001, Fall 2001, Spring 2002 Results
(N=29)
Question 1-What positive contributions do you feel that you made to the classroom?
|
Student Responses |
Number |
|
Bond with children |
7 |
|
Helped children learn |
15 |
|
Provided extra help in classroom |
20 |
|
Brought new ideas |
7 |
|
Assisted children who needed extra help |
17 |
|
Provide quality lessons |
9 |
Question 2-Has this been a positive experience for you?
|
Student Responses |
Number |
|
Yes |
36 |
|
No |
1 |
Question 3-If yes, why?
|
Student Responses |
Number |
|
Experience in the schools |
13 |
|
Learned a great deal |
19 |
|
Helped cooperating teachers |
7 |
|
Bonded with children |
3 |
|
Served as role model |
2 |
|
Gained confidence |
11 |
|
Helped in deciding where to teach in the future |
6 |
|
Student Responses |
Number |
|
Struggled with writing and teaching lessons |
1 |
Question 5: What changes would you suggest for field placement?
|
Student Responses |
Number |
|
Two consecutive morning and afternoons |
4 |
|
None |
4 |
|
Teachers and principals need permission for every activity |
2 |
|
Knowledge of responsibilities and capabilities of candidates by cooperating teacher and candidate |
6 |
|
Placement in grade desired by teacher candidate |
2 |
|
Cooperating teachers should utilize candidates more |
2 |
|
Surname should be on badges |
2 |
|
More time should be spent in classrooms |
6 |
The following are responses from cooperating teachers about positive contributions interns made in their classrooms. The results include information from Fall 2000, Spring 2001, and Fall 2001 cooperating teachers.
1.What positive contributions did the student intern make to your classroom?
|
Teacher Responses |
Number |
|
1. Helped Children Learn |
21 |
|
2. Helpful |
10 |
|
3. Demeanor and Attitude |
14 |
|
4. Quality lesson plans |
29 |
|
5. Provided individual help to children |
30 |
|
6. Provided extra help |
22 |
|
7. Bonded with students |
19 |
|
8. Brought new ideas |
13 |
|
9. Assisted with classroom management |
13 |
2. Has this been a positive experience for you? Why or why not?
|
Teacher Responses |
Number |
|
1. Yes |
47 |
|
2. No |
3 |
Rationale for “Yes” and “No” responses to questions 2
|
Yes Response Rationale |
Number |
|
1. Extra person to help |
10 |
|
2. Learning experience |
2 |
|
3. Brought new ideas |
10 |
|
4. Helped with classroom management |
5 |
|
5. Attitude and cooperation |
9 |
|
6. Made one aware of one’s own lesson |
8 |
|
7. |
10 |
|
|
|
|
No Response Rationale |
Numerical Response |
|
1. Scheduling Issues |
2 |
Support for the
First Graduate
Hire Survey
First New Teacher Survey
The first seven cohort graduates were asked to respond to questions about their first position. All graduates were hired and responded. The questions and responses are as follows:
Question 1: What is your area of certification?
All students are certified K-8 plus special education.
Question 2: What is your teaching position, grade, school and district?
|
Teaching Position |
Grade |
School |
District |
State |
|
1. Reg. Ed. |
4 |
|
|
DE |
|
2. Sp. Ed. |
7 |
|
|
DE |
|
3. Sp. Ed. |
1-4 |
Booker T.Wash. Elementary School |
Capital |
DE |
|
4. Reg. Ed. |
4 |
|
|
DE |
|
5. Sp. Ed. |
3-4 |
|
|
DE |
|
6. Sp. Ed. |
2-3 |
|
Wicomico |
MD |
|
7. Sp. Ed.
|
Self-Cont. 2-5 |
|
|
DE |
Question 3: What was your interview and offer date?
|
New Teacher Interview Dates |
Position Offered Dates |
|
1. |
1. |
|
2. |
2. |
|
3. |
3. |
|
4. |
4. |
|
5. |
5. |
|
6. Mid July, 2002 |
6. Did not recall |
|
7. Spring, 2002 |
7. August, 2002 ( 1st or 3rd) |
Question 4: When did you sign your contract?
|
New Teacher’s Responses |
|
|
|
2. Respondent had not signed contract when this survey was given. |
|
3. August, 2002 |
|
4. |
|
5. |
|
6. |
|
7. August 1 or 3,2002 |
Question 5: How do you feel about your new position?
Program Years 1
and 2
|
ETE COURSE SEQUENCE |
||||||||
|
Course Number |
Course |
Yr 1 Sem
1 |
Yr 1 Sem
W |
Yr 1 Sem
2 |
Yr 2 Sem
1 |
Yr 2 Sem
W |
Yr 2 Sem
2 |
Credits |
|
EDUC
258 |
Cultural Diversity |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
HIST
103/104 |
World
History |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
MATH
251 |
Math
for Elementary School I |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
EDUC
202 |
Human
Development I |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
ENGL
110 |
Critical
Reading & Writing |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
LING
101 |
Introduction
to Linguistics |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
MATH
252 |
Math
for Elementary School II |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
GEOL
113 |
Earth
Science |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
MUSC 105 or ART
138 |
Music Elementary
Drawing & Painting |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
HIST
205/206 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
EDUC
267 |
Methods
of Instruction |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
ENGL
207-210 |
English
Elective |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
3 |
|
MATH
253 |
Math
for Elementary School III |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
3 |
|
EDUC
230 |
Introduction to Exceptional Children |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
3 |
|
BISC
104 or 207 |
Biology |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
4 |
|
GEOG
120 |
Geography |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
3 |
|
SCEN
102 |
Physical
Science |
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
4 |
|
ARTH 150/151 or MUSC
101/102 |
Art History Music
Appreciation |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
3 |
|
EDUC
210 |
Introduction to Literature
and Literary |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
3 |
|
EDUC
240/247 |
Professional
Issues |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
3 |
|
EDUC
203 |
Human
Development II |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
3 |
|
TOTAL CREDITS |
15 |
0 |
17 |
16 |
0 |
16 |
64 |
|
Revised
APPENDIX F
Program Years 3
and 4
|
ETE COURSE SEQUENCE |
||||||||
|
Course Number |
Course |
Yr
3 Sem 1 |
Yr
3 Sem W |
Yr
3 Sem 2 |
Yr
4 Sem 1 |
Yr
4 Sem W |
Yr
4 Sem 2 |
Credits |
|
EDUC 308 |
Curriculum
for the Primary and Middle Grades |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
2 |
|
EDUC 310 |
Reading
and Writing in the Primary Grades |
2 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
EDUC 320 |
Reading
and Writing in the Middle Grades |
|
|
2 |
1 |
|
|
3 |
|
EDUC 335 |
Elementary Curriculum/Math |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
3 |
|
EDUC 341 |
Elementary Curriculum/Science |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
3 |
|
EDUC 346 |
Elementary
Curriculum/Social Science |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
3 |
|
EDUC 390 |
Instructional
Strategies and Reflective Practice |
2 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
EDUC 386 |
Educational Technology III |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
EDUC 400 |
Student Teaching |
|
|
|
6 |
|
6 |
12 |
|
EDUC 431 |
Applied Behavior Analysis |
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
3 |
|
EDUC 432 |
Curriculum
for School Aged Exceptional Children |
|
|
|
1 |
|
2 |
3 |
|
EDUC 433 |
Non-School
Factors Affecting Learning in the Classroom |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
2 |
|
EDUC 435 |
Educational
Evaluation for Exceptional Children |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
3 |
|
EDUC 436 |
Literacy
Problems: Assessment and Instruction |
1 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
EDUC 451 |
Educational Assessment |
2 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
EDUC 486 |
Educational Technology IV |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
ENGL 479 |
Literacy and Literature |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
ECON 367 |
Economics
for the Elementary Classroom |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
3 |
|
SCEN 340 |
Science
for Teachers in the Real
World |
2 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
4 |
|
POSC 418 |
Constitutional
Issues in the Public Schools |
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
3 |
|
ARTH 402 |
The
Beautiful |
|
1 |
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
EDUC 410 |
Assistive Technology I |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL CREDITS |
17 |
2 |
17 |
17 |
3 |
14 |
70 |
|
APPENDIX G
Sample Schedules
University of
Delaware/Milford
Fall 2001 Schedule
Juniors
|
|
Mon. |
Tue. |
Wed. |
Thur. |
Fri. |
|
|
Field |
Field |
EDUC 335 |
EDUC 435 |
|
|
|
Placement |
Placement |
EDUC 341 |
EDUC 436 |
SCEN 467 |
|
|
|
|
EDUC 346 |
EDUC 451 |
( |
|
|
|
|
EDUC 310 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EDUC 390 |
|
|
|
|
|
*ENGL 467 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(literature piece) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**EDUC 386 or |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ENGL 467 (Literacy Piece) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University of
Delaware/Milford
Fall 2001 Schedule
Seniors
|
|
Mon. |
Tue. |
Wed. |
Thur. |
Fri. |
|
|
*Senior |
Field |
Field |
Field |
Field |
|
|
Classes |
Placement |
Placement |
Placement |
Placement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EDUC 400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
EDUC 431 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|