Middle Level Section 4 Candidate Preparation

Section 4
Candidate Preparation (printable version)

The below listed are examples of data and information used to inform practice and program development in an ongoing fashion with regard to the Master of Arts in Middle Level Education. It is well noted, however, that data gathering is neither systematic nor reflective of program commitment, but rather represents the mentor-protégé relationship between the major middle level advisor and students.

A. Candidate Perception of Preparation: There are two sources of candidates’ perceptions of preparation, one newly instituted in the academic year 2002-2003: The standards-based Masters in Middle Level Portfolio demonstrates the growth of the candidate both with regard to specific course goals, objectives, and products and through the use of a reflective paper attached to each completed project. This not only benefits the candidate in the examination of thoughtful learning and implementation into his/her own classroom practice, but it informs the professor as to the value of the project and the ways in which the experience could be more valuable.

As well a reflective paper assessing each course at its completion, offers more substantive information and guidance for improvement in the course than does the formal university-wide assessment which tends to be more sweeping in its perspective.

Additionally, the completed Masters Portfolio offers the candidate the opportunity to examine the program in general and offer thoughtful criticism.

The second and more informal source of information occurs at the Middle Level Masters Final Defense, during which the candidate is orally asked to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the program, suggestions for improvement and ways in which the University may continue to support the candidate beyond graduation. It is from here that we have responded with the more formal Portfolio that will generate more consistent data.

The Graduate Orientation, intended to be taken at the beginning of the masters program, has been reshaped to offer written and oral dialogue which seek the opinions and needs of entering graduate students. In response to students’ needs for class offerings at times that reflect respect for a full-time classroom teacher, have come the Alternative Format classes instituted in the Spring-Summer of 2001. Each course was examined through the lenses of rigor and reflection for its appropriateness in a summer format that would offer more immersion and depth in a more intensive period of time. The response to these classes has been substantive, with increased enrollments in the program and increased enrollments across the spring/summer of 2002.

C. Pedagogy. There are multiple ways in which the more systematic gathering of data concerning candidates’ pedagogical skills has continued to improve the middle level masters program. The use of candidate journals kept for a semester during the 622 Effective Teaching in Middle Level class has offered substantive qualitative data in areas of candidates’ strengths and weaknesses as well as perceptions and practices. On site observations by university personnel and by cohort peers along with the videotaping of candidates’ classroom instruction yields another insight into the effectiveness of the masters program. Various assessments of projects such as the Handbook of Community Services written by the candidate for families and school personnel, the critical case study, the team writing of an interdisciplinary unit, the writing of proposal for NMSA conference presentation, position papers, formal research papers, multicultural clan projects, professional and personal philosophy papers, peer teaching within the college classroom, and the middle level culminating thesis/curriculum project are all viable sources that shape the program in an ongoing fashion. Again, the new Masters in Middle Level Portfolios will yield yet another formal source of information.

D. Cooperating Teacher/Mentor Perceptions. This is again an area that needs more formal examination and structure. Informal perceptions come through such sources as: the middle level advisor has given invited workshops in over nine school districts in which our masters students teach, with multiple schools within those districts. These mentor-protégé connections further nurture the ongoing relationships with the individual candidate’s schools and with the district at large.

Additionally, three of our completed Masters in Middle Level students are now teaching for the university both in graduate and in undergraduate capacities. As well, thirteen of our outstanding completed master’s program students are writing a middle grades text with the middle level advisor-evidence of the nurturing of the continued professional growth of our students beyond program completion.

Using an Eastern Michigan University study, “2000-2001 Follow-Up Study of the College of Education Program Completers”, as a model, data will be systematically gathered every three years on program completers. Appendix C includes a copy of the survey that will offer more quantitative data on students’ perceptions of the program while the Masters Portfolio will provide more qualitative data, also included in Appendix C.

E. Content-Area Faculty Perceptions. Again, this is an area in which more systematic data needs to be gathered. All Middle Level masters students are required to have a professor from their content area on their Middle Level Masters Thesis or Curriculum Project. Anecdotal information and informal conversation have been positive and dynamically collegial. This bridge from the College of Education to the College of Arts and Sciences has proven to be stimulating and supportive as we integrate program experiences across colleges.

Return to Middle Level Index