COE Home

EMU Home

EMU NCATE/State

Part I NCATE Report

Part II State Reports

Part III Exhibits

Part IV Tools & References

Part V Errata and Addenda

Site Map

BOE Homepage

HELP with these pages

John W. Porter Building

    A complete statement of the conceptual frameworks of the initial and advanced educator preparation programs appears in the exhibits. (See the conceptual frameworks exhibits.) This overview will provide a brief description of the conceptual frameworks and an abbreviated history of their development. There will be a discussion of changes that have been made since the 1997 NCATE review.

Brief Description

   The conceptual frameworks for the professional educator programs of Eastern Michigan University (EMU) are informed by a variety of sources: vision and mission statements, purposes and goals, knowledge bases, candidate proficiencies, and assessment processes and outcomes. The institution's vision (see Exhibit CF-1), the institution's mission (see Exhibit CF-2), the unit's vision (see Exhibit CF-3), and the unit's mission (see Exhibit CF-4), are fundamental sources.

   The beliefs behind (see Exhibit CF-6) and the purposes/goals of (see Exhibit CF-7) the initial teacher preparation program, along with the beliefs behind (see Exhibit CF-9) and the purposes/goals of (see Exhibit CF-10) the advanced preparation programs, are all essential to the shaping of our delivery and assessment systems.

   Our beliefs and purposes/goals are supported by knowledge bases, a single one covering the initial teacher preparation program (see Exhibit CF-12), and multiple ones covering the advanced educator preparation programs (see Exhibit CF-13). These knowledge bases include a body of research and scholarly literature (see Exhibit CF-14).

   The beliefs/goals/knowledge bases are summarized in the themes for our conceptual frameworks--themes that guide our program development and implementation:

Initial: Caring professional educators for a diverse and democratic society.

Advanced: Inquiry, advocacy, and leadership in education for a diverse and democratic society.

    Candidate proficiencies are aligned with the expectations of professional, state, and institutional standards, as documented in Exhibit CF-15. The system by which candidate performance is assessed is outlined briefly in Exhibit CF-16 and Exhibit CF-17 and described in detail in the Standard 2 section of the Institutional Report.

Development of the Conceptual Frameworks

   The origins of our current conceptual frameworks can be traced back more than a decade. Following the 1992 NCATE review (click here and go to Exhibits G-1 through G-4 to see all materials related to the 1992 NCATE review), extensive work was done, at both the initial and advanced levels, on components of the conceptual frameworks, involving a wide range of constituencies. (See, for example, 1992-1997 era minutes of the College of Education Council and extant minutes of the Basic Programs Committee [and its predecessor, the University Council on Teacher Education], the Advanced Programs Committee [and its ad hoc predecessor], and departmental meetings.)

   These discussions resulted in a number of program modifications that had been planned and approved, but, at most, barely implemented at the time of the 1997 NCATE review. Compare, for example, the content/structure of programs as outlined in the 1997 Professional Education Supplement to the Catalog with that of earlier catalogs. Even more relevant, compare the "knowledge base" materials of the 1997 NCATE Institutional Report for the initial preparation programs and for the advanced programs with the roughly comparable materials presented in the 1992 NCATE Institutional Report .

   With implementation of numerous program changes around 1997, along with rapid changes in standards/expectations at both national and state levels at about the same time (e.g., changes in NCATE Standards, strengthening of the state periodic review process, SPA expansions and changes), came the realization that the 1997 statements of conceptual frameworks (and the implementation that should logically follow from them) were still imperfect. Since 1997, much additional work--both change and expansion--has been accomplished with respect to all components of the conceptual frameworks.

Changes Since 1997

Among the major changes affecting the conceptual frameworks that have occurred since 1997 are these:

• The institutional vision has changed somewhat. This may be seen by comparing the 1997-era statement, as given in the "Values" section of the 1996-1998 Catalog with the statement of "Values" given in the recent iteration of the "Strategic Plan ."

• The revised institutional mission moves EMU in different directions. Compare, for example, the statement of "mission" in the 1996-1998 Catalog with that found in the recent iteration of the "Strategic Plan ."

• A reference to "diversity" has been included in the College of Education mission statement.

• The conceptual framework themes have been modified. In part, this has occurred because of the difficulty of faculty and staff members and students being able to remember a lengthy statement. The changes also reflect some shifts in emphasis. Compare, for example, the former statements of "EMU teacher educators produce knowledgeable professionals who are caring, reflective, decision-makers in a culturally diverse and technological society. (initial preparation programs)" and "Eastern Michigan University advanced professional education programs develop leaders who demonstrate reflective thought and scholarship within the context of a culturally diverse society. (advanced programs)" with those given above.

• The goals for both the initial and advanced programs have become more specific. Compare, for example, the 1997 outcomes that cover many of the initial teacher preparation programs with those given in Exhibit 1.1.A .

• Of particular interest is the fact that this institution has been relatively early in the identification and assessment of candidate dispositions. Faculty members have had frequent opportunities to present on the subject at professional meetings. "Dispositions" by any name are hardly referenced in the 1997 NCATE Institutional Report. By contrast, see the material in the "Dispositions for All Candidates " section of this Institutional Report.

• Many additional assessment mechanisms have been put into place. Compare, for example, the content of the "Ensuring the Competence of Candidates" section of the 1997 Institutional Report with the materials found in Standard 2 of this Institutional Report.

• Numerous program modifications have been made to align programs better with state and national standards as well as to be responsive to findings of various assessments. See minutes of the College of Education Council, 1997-2003, for example.

• External funding, such as from (among others) the "Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality" consortium, has permitted new instructional approaches to be tried and evaluated.

    Much discussion has taken place--in departmental meetings, in meetings of the Basic Programs Committee and the Advanced Programs Committee, and elsewhere--about the components of the conceptual frameworks. This has contributed to the creation of a greater shared vision than we have had before.  Numerous activities, influenced heavily by external standards, have contributed to greater coherence of programs.

   The institution's and unit's commitment to diversity long precedes any recent work on conceptual frameworks but, if anything, the commitment has intensified and extended to more categories of diversity. See Standard 4 of the Institutional Report. Particularly with the renovation of and move into the Porter Building (which has occurred since the previous NCATE review) and the availability of appreciable instructional technology acquired since the move, the unit's commitment to the use of technology has expanded exponentially. (See Standard 6 of the Institutional Report.

Structural Elements

   The reader will find in the Exhibits a discussion of how each of these expectations is implemented through our conceptual frameworks and, elsewhere in this Institutional Report, through our delivery systems: shared vision (see Exhibit CF-18), coherence (see Exhibit CF-19), professional commitments and dispositions (see Exhibit CF-20), commitment to diversity (see Exhibit CF-21), commitment to technology (see Exhibit CF-22), and candidate proficiencies aligned with professional and state standards (see Exhibit CF-23).

Previous Page