Page 1

partnering to develop India’s greatest asset its children

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

Ministry of Human Resource Development Ministry of Urban Development


how does the country with the largest number of children in the world modernize its educational system?

A REPORT OF PROGRESS AND IMPACT

The In-STEP program is helping to address serious questions and overcome monumental challenges in the effort to create a new, modern, public education system. But how can just 110 Indian educators quickly adopt new education methods and adapt them to their home institutions? How can ASU help In-STEP participants formulate meaningful plans for reform? And what is required to inspire these teacher educators to become change leaders able to foster a new educational age in India? Through In-STEP, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), India’s Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), and ASU are working to increase the effectiveness of the teaching workforce by enhancing the knowledge and capabilities of the country’s leading teacher educators. In concert with experts from MHRD, a handpicked group of renowned educators at ASU’s Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College constructed an intensive academic residency program with two primary goals:

Report of Progress and Impact

1

Executive Summary

24

Letter from the Dean

2

Acronyms

24

In-STEP Curriculum

6

Introduction & Lessons Learned

25

Constructivism

10

Cohort 1 Program Management

27

Inclusive and Democratic Practices

12

Cohort 1 Coursework

29

Technology

14

Cohort 1 Curriculum Review

37

Reform

17

Cohort 2 Curriculum Framework & Organization

38

Evaluation & Documentation

41

2

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

1

2

Indian educators will take the practices and methodologies learned at ASU back to their home institutions, where they can be adapted to Indian contexts and used to enhance the capabilities of India’s current and future teachers.

Through the documentation of this project, MHRD will acquire a model for developing the capacity of teacher educators that India can adapt and adopt as a critical driver of the nation’s mission to transform school education.

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

1


A REPORT OF PROGRESS AND IMPACT

As this report will detail, there are clear indications the In-STEP program is having significant impact on the participants – changing their perceptions of teaching methodologies, helping them interact with and support fellow educators, and guiding them in their efforts to propose and enact meaningful educational reforms. Highlights of their experience includes: • Immersion in the MLFTC teacher education program that included visits to K-12 classrooms, conversations with master teachers, and engagement with ASU teacher trainees in their university classes. • Intensive training in technology to develop teaching and learning strategies that incorporate computers, Internet applications and other classroom technologies. • Development of reform proposals that can be implemented at the participants’ home institutions and contribute to the development of an overarching national system that – in conjunction with the In-STEP program – will be an effective means of transforming India’s schools. • Formation of Professional Learning Communities (PLC) to review project work, provide critical feedback, and foster lasting relationships to help implement reform programs upon returning to India.

Mari Koerner Dean, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College

The destiny of India is now being shaped in schools and classrooms. No organization is better able to assist India’s MHRD with preparing an effective teaching corps than ASU and the Mary Lou Fulton Teacher College. Being “globally engaged” is an imperative for ASU. Among the notable international programs ASU has has led are the International Academic

While reviewing the impressive progress of the first In-STEP Fellows, keep in mind that MHRD and ASU experts are already working diligently to enhance and evolve this dynamic program. It is our goal to produce results among the second cohort that are distinct from but complementary to the first, thereby magnifying the impact of the In-STEP program as a whole.

Partnership Program, the International Leaders in Education Program, Higher Engineering Education Alliance Program in Vietnam, Advancing Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Armenia, and Vocational Training and Education for Clean Energy. In addition, the university has deep resources in teacher preparation, and we offer the In-STEP teacher educators cutting-edge, researchbased preparation and exposure to dynamic thinkers, practitioners, and innovators. The customized education course they experience draws on an award-winning model that graduates nearly 1,500 effective educators

Ara Barsam In-STEP Program Director Assistant Dean of Research, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College

2

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

every year. The Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College – America’s largest – is honored to be an integral part of India’s quest to strengthen the educational system of one of the globe’s largest and most diverse populations.

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

3


Each participant started their journey by reflecting on what being an educator meant to them. It was a way of affirming the importance of being an educator on India’s future, while also setting the stage for a program that would help them to understand and put into practice the very strategies that would help fulfill their ambitions.

The role of an educator is to shape the destiny of a nation.”

“ “

– GRACEFULNESS STEN, IN-STEP FELLOW, 2013

– AMRIT, IN-STEP FELLOW, 2013

I will work towards the development of relevant understandings, skills and dispositions in teachers so that all learners are treated with respect, dignity and fairness.”

I will promise to do good by serving the teaching community by helping them light up and lead the world with knowledge irrespective of caste, creed and color.”

I pledge to the best of my ability and commitment to bring about a just and humane quality of teacher education.”

– DAVID M. NONGRUM, IN-STEP FELLOW, 2013

I will try to evaluate my students continuously and comprehensively and I will provide continuous support for the learning outcome.”

– BALADIANGTI NONGBRI, IN-STEP FELLOW, 2013

– SARVADA NAND, IN-STEP FELLOW, 2013

4

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

5


targeted curriculum delivered by world-class faculty

[Because] the burden is put on the participants to come up with their own ideas and not sit back waiting for the teacher to give the answer… the fundamental tenet of constructivism is demonstrated. I was impressed with the cohesion provided through the core course and the requirement put on the participants, with faculty guidance, to think through how all the moving parts of the program fit together… I observed sessions on equity, technology and ethics and found them stimulating and thoughtprovoking for the participants.”

A team of renowned educators at ASU’s Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College created an innovative customized curriculum addressing the goals and aspirations of the In-STEP program.

–D  AVID SPRAGUE FORMER DIRECTOR OF USAID’S OFFICE OF EDUCATION WITH WORLD-WIDE RESPONSIBILITIES

FEATURED CURRICULUM

FEATURED FACULTY

FOUNDATIONS OF LEARNING & INSTRUCTION A hybrid lecture/discussion/collaborative-learning format that probes and assesses how well the educators have understood and internalized constructivist theories of learning; provides many models of constructivist-style teaching strategies and opportunities to practice them; and, explicitly explores, models and practices strategies by which teacher educators can help teacher candidates to acquire constructivist instructional techniques.

TEACHING & LEARNING WITH TECHNOLOGY Participants investigate how educators can leverage technology for learners of diverse social, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds and ability levels.

ADDITIONAL COURSES INCLUDE:

ETHICS IN THE CLASSROOM An exploration of how applied ethics can be integrated into programs of teacher preparation and K-12 classrooms. Participants compare and contrast codes of ethics developed by U.S. professional teaching associations.

• Reform Leadership and Dealing with Change • Early Childhood Literacy: Research and Practice • Sustainability Science for Teacher Educators • Classroom Instruction that Works

6

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

GENDER EQUITY & INCLUSION Includes readings, discussions and hands-on practice of strategies designed to draw children from marginalized communities into full participation in schools, helping equip teacher educators to become site advocates for inclusion at their home institutions.

EDUCATION & DEMOCRACY This module pivots on twin questions: What does it mean to educate for democracy? And what effects do 21st century democracies in India and the U.S. have on public schools? Participants will consider current events in Indian life and politics and their implications for India’s schools.

LEE HARTWELL, PhD LEAD INSTRUCTOR, SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE FOR TEACHER EDUCATORS Lee Hartwell is the Virginia G. Piper Chair in Personalized Medicine at the Center for Sustainable Health, Biodesign Institute. Dr. Hartwell was awarded the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for identifying genes that control cell division in yeast. He also oversees a project to develop biomarkers for the clinical management of many diseases at the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and University in Taipei,Taiwan.

SARUP MATHUR, PhD LEAD FACILITATOR, PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES Sarup R. Mathur is Associate Professor of Special Education and Program Co-Coordinator of Special Education in the Division of Educational Leadership and Innovation. Dr. Mathur is nationally recognized for her work in the field of emotional and behavioral disorders. She has been the coeditor of the TECBD Monograph Series on Severe Behavior Disorders of Children and Youth for more than 20 years. She has authored/co-authored numerous articles on professional development of teachers, among other topics.

CHRIS CLARK, PhD CO-INSTRUCTOR, FOUNDATIONS OF LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION, LEAD INSTRUCTOR, ETHICS IN THE CLASSROOM Chris Clark is Research Professor at the Arizona State University Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College. He wrote ‘The Good Teacher’, a landmark article in teacher education and a core component of the In-STEP curriculum. Dr. Clark has been an active member of the American Educational Research Association since 1973 and was a founding member of the International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching (ISATT). His awards include a Fulbright Research Fellowship; Spencer Fellowship; AERA awards for original research and for relating research to the practice of teaching. 2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

7


student empowerment Participants explored strategies for inclusion of all students – including girls and children from marginalized communities. This segment included an introduction to the Equity Alliance at ASU as well as activities to build skills in entrepreneurship, change implementation, and social venture work.

1

53

THE FIRST PROGRAM OF ITS KIND IN INDIA

PARTICIPANTS IN COHORT 1

teacher professionalism Teacher educators worked with a first-of-its-kind teaching video game, “Teacher Leader: Pursuit of Professionalism.” The game is a problem-based scenario in which users explore solutions to questions about professional conduct in schools. Content for the game is rooted in the professional values of Teach for America.

200+ CLASSROOM HOURS IN THE RESIDENCY PROGRAM

100% COMPLETED REFORM PROPOSALS

teacher evaluation

8

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

In-STEP Fellows attended a four-day training session in TAP (The System for Teacher and Student Advancement Training) by NIET. ASU is the only university to date to embed this highly praised program of teacher development and incentive into its programs for preparing pre-service teachers.

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

9


creating collaborative classrooms

We were shown a whole lot of strategies on how to engage learners and make them co-participants in the construction of new knowledge.” – DAVID M. NONGRUM, IN-STEP FELLOW, 2013

Through In-STEP, we are helping empower India’s educators and students to become partners in the learning process. We recognize that teachers do not possess and dispense all knowledge, and that each student has a unique perspective that brings value to groups through discussion and collaboration. As a result, learning is made more effective and meaningful when participants are engaged and actively involved with their own education.

TRADITIONAL LEARNING

94%

Knowledge is handed down

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING The majority of the Cohort 1 Fellows demonstrated increased knowledge of constructivist theories of learning, motivation, and change

Learning activities are interactive and student-centered. Asking open-ended questioning, using hands-on activities and promoting group discussions will encourage participation and spark students’ enthusiasm, nurturing a life-long interest in learning.

94%

79% 10

Four out of five participants reported that they would use constructivism in their approach when presenting their reform proposal to the class

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

7

Seven teacher educators from Cohort 1 targeted constructive teaching as the primary topic of their reform proposal

47 out of 50 showed a more sophisticated understanding of constructivism 2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

11


20

Societal Change

36

58%

Teacher Training Change

56

applying principles of equity, inclusiveness and democracy

School-Wide Change

INCREASE

– MAHATMA GANDHI

3

Give equal opportunity, treatment and access to every child

Take care of individuals’ specific need

Give opportunities for each individual to achieve his or her full potential

post-survey

2

pre-survey

1

96% The overwhelming majority indicated that their reform proposals included action plans that reflected democratic ideas and practices.

32

We have to be the change we want to see in others.”

31

8

We recognize the importance of incorporating gender equity, inclusion and democratic principles in the In-STEP experience. These principles were discussed, demonstrated and reviewed repeatedly in virtually every classroom experience to ensure that their impact was felt throughout the program. We also encouraged the adaptation of these practices in reform proposals so that all children, regardless of their gender or background, can receive an excellent education.

There was a 58% increase in the belief that future educators need to create more equitable and inclusive schools* *Because a participant’s answer often included more than one idea, the total code frequency of responses to the question was greater than the total number of Fellows.

12

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

13


using technology to accelerate learning Technology is essential in assisting learners of diverse social, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds and wide-ranging ability levels. Consequently, we introduced teacher educators to innovative programs and initiatives created at numerous technology centers at ASU and made certain all participants were taught to use tools such as Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, Edmodo, Weebly and PhotoPeach to accelerate learning in their communities.

29 4 BEFORE

PROFICIENCY WITH TECHNOLOGY The participants arrived at ASU with limited experience in using technology in the classroom. Upon completing the residency program, they demonstrated significant improvement, with 96% rating themselves as proficient, up from 64%.

14

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

TECHNOLOGY TOOLS USED

®

PARTICIPANTS WHO RATED THEMSELVES AS “ADVANCED” IN USING TECHNOLOGY

AFTER

hours spent on technology

64

Core Course

33½

Technology Module

74

All Other Modules

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

15


how can we put these ideas into practice to create impact?

focus on reform Participants worked individually and collaboratively to define and explain their reform ideas. Each In-STEP Fellow demonstrated that they were able to apply lessons learned at ASU and craft an actionable proposal that clearly identified their reform concept, explained the challenges it addressed, and included a plan for implementation as well as for monitoring results. This ensures that we can successfully manage and measure the impact of these strategies moving forward.

REFORM PROPOSAL TOPICS

Constructive Teaching Reflective Teaching School Internships Technology Integration

70%

Mathematics Science Language Democracy /Inclusion Action Research Learning Resource Center Supervision and Assessment Project Management Engagement 16

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

An impressive 70% discussed technology integration, constructivism, and democratic/inclusive classroom ideas in their reform proposals


THOUGHTS ON REFORM

The long-term goals of the project are to strengthen the present delivery system through consultations, collaborations and reflection between teacher educators.”

THOUGHTS ON REFORM

– DAVID M. NONGRUM IN-STEP FELLOW, 2013

I feel PLC would serve as a platform for interaction among student teachers on issues of developing materials and planning for teaching. It would help in collective learning and application of learning.” – AMRIT, IN-STEP FELLOW, 2013

Co-teaching for teachers and studentteachers will help them develop a critical sensitivity to approaches, evolving one’s vision of an ideal setting for learning.”

New pedagogy and new concept of school internship need to be tried out to get the appropriate feedback.” – ATUL KUMAR DANAYAK IN-STEP FELLOW, 2013

– D EEPA RANI SAHOO IN-STEP FELLOW, 2013

18

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

19


adapt and adopt to spread influence

Participants were grouped into Professional Learning Communities in the In-STEP program to foster a support system that would benefit their academic and professional efforts both during the program at ASU and after their return to their home institutions.

The challenges facing India’s educational system are daunting – an influx of students triggered by the Right to Education Act of 2009; the poverty and limited educational preparation of students in rural areas; classrooms without electricity, computers, or internet connection – or teachers who have no training in how to use what technology they have; corrosive discrimination against girls and minorities; and – among teachers – high rates of absenteeism, lack of motivation and no experience in modern teaching methods. In-STEP participants will take what they learned at ASU to their home institutions, adapting it to Indian contexts and enhancing the capabilities of India’s current and future teachers. Collaborating with members of their learning communities and ASU faculty, they will put these new ideas into practice and undertake their reform proposals.

9

The teachers were selected from 9 states within India

50%

Each In-STEP participant thought they were likely to maintain contact with nearly 50% of their colleagues in the cohort

11 20

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

Teachers are divided into 11 regional groups for PLCs

Ultimately, all 110 In-STEP participants – representing states throughout India – will lead the way forward, generating an array of reforms that will culminate in a stronger educational system for the nation’s children. At the end of their project experience, it was clear that all of the Fellows had a compelling vision for change.

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

21


a deeper look into the progress, impact and evolution of the In-STEP program

22

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

23


Executive Summary

Participants increased their knowledge of, and use of, technology

During October, November, and December 2013, Fellows participated in over 200 hours of instruction focusing on constructivist pedagogy, empowerment, teacher evaluation, and teacher professionalism

• Pre-assessment showed that while only 61% of Fellows rated themselves as proficient in technology, post-assessment indicated that 96% rated themselves as proficient (p < .001).

• Course modules included: Teaching and Learning with Technology; Gender Equity and Inclusion; Ethics in the Classroom; and Democracy, Creating Classroom Climates, and Equity

• Participants reported a significant increase in their use of technology (for example, ability to use specific software, website applications, computer programs, etc.) from the beginning of the program to the end (p < .001).

• Training workshops included: Classroom Instruction that Works and TAP, the System for Teacher and Student Advancement.

• 98% of participants presented their reform proposals to their learning communities with PowerPoint incorporating multiple means of technology (pictures, graphics, video clips, etc.).

• Fellows also participated in library tour/training, Situated Multimedia Arts Learning Lab (SMALLab), a national conference, K-12 public school classroom visits, and visits to ASU classes. Fellows experienced the United States through visits to historical sites and American cultural events • To enhance Fellows understanding of United States history included visits to a Native American art/history museum, local state parks, the Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, and Washington, D.C. • Indo-American Community events were coordinated with the Fellows. Events included a welcome reception; Navaratri, Durga Puja, and Diwali Celebrations, and Discover India community event. • ASU events included a reception with the Teachers College Dean, Dr. Mari Koerner; a Halloween gathering; a traditional American holiday party; and a certificate/recognition ceremony.

ERP – Educational Reform Proposal HEEAP – Higher Engineering Education Alliance Program IAPP – International Academic Partnerships Program IIE – Institute for International Education ILEP – International Leaders in Education Program In-STEP – India Support for Teacher Education Program iTeachAZ – I Teach Arizona (signature ASU program of teacher preparation) LDM – Leadership Development Mechanism McREL – McREL International (Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning) MHRD – Ministry for Human Resource Development

Participants increased their knowledge of democratic ideology and reported that they would use these ideals in practice

MHYC – Maternal Health Young Champions

• Participants increased their knowledge of equity and democratic ideology. At pre-assessment, 97% rated themselves with the lowest understanding of democratic ideology; whereas at post-assessment, this number decreased to 67% (p <.001). Further, 17% rated themselves in the higher tiers of knowledge compared with none at pre-assessment (p <.001).

NGO – Nongovernmental Organization

• The overwhelming majority (96%) indicated that their reform proposals included action plans that reflected democratic ideas and practices.

PLC – Professional Learning Community

All Participants successfully developed and finalized their reform proposals throughout the course of the program.

SIG – Special Interest Group

• All participants provided course instructors with a preliminary reform proposal to which they received feedback.

NIET – The National Institute for Excellence in Teaching PMEP – Project Monitoring and Evaluation Plan PRIME – Practice, Research and Improvement in Mathematics Education RFA – Request for Applications RTE Act or RTE – Right to Education Act SCERT – State Council Educational Research and Training SOE – School of Education STIR Education – Schools and Teachers Innovating for Results TAP – System for Teacher and Student Advancement Teachers College – Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College

Participants contributed to and were actively engaged in all activities throughout the course of their participation at Arizona State University

• All participants presented their complete reform proposals to their learning communities with all necessary components included in the presentation.

TPAK – Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

• Taking into account excused absences due to illness, the attendance rates were 100% for the following modules: Constructivism, Technology, Equity and Inclusion, Democracy.

• As measured by a grading rubric, 100% of participants increased the quality of the reform proposals at final submission.

U.S. – United States

• Reports from instructors and from observations indicate high levels of engagement during class time and also in professional learning communities

Taking into account lessons learned from Cohort 1, feedback from the educational experts from MHRD, and evaluation results, enhancements have been included in the program for Cohort 2.

— Instructors indicated that participants actively sought feedback on their work.

• To alleviate technology barriers once Fellows arrive at ASU, they will receive technology training prior to arriving and participating in coursework.

— Videotaped observations found that participants were attentive to instructors, posed questions, engaged in discussions, and presented their own work.

• Fellows in Cohort 2 will receive a theoretical exploration of educational issues beyond the technical approach to teacher training, and required courses on foundational topics in education and one elective will be offered.

• All participants developed a reform proposal, received feedback, and 100% submitted a completed reform proposal at the end of the program. Participants increased their knowledge and use of constructivism theory • There was a significant increase in knowledge of constructivist learning and motivation as indicated from pre-test to post-test (p < .01). • Four out of five participants (79%) reported that they would use constructivism in their approach when presenting their reform proposal to the class.

• Goals for Cohort 2 Fellows will include increased critical reading and analytical skills, ability to engage in peer learning activities and professional development to increase skills, ability to constructively make recommendations for improving education.

Acronyms AERA – American Educational Research Association ASU – Arizona State University CofP – Community of Practice CV – Curriculum Vitae DERT – Directorate of Educational Research and Training DIET – District Institute for Education and Training

24

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

UNICEF – United Nations Children’s Fund USAID – United States Agency for International Development VOCTEC – Vocational Training and Education for Clean Energy 

Introduction & Lessons Learned This Annual Report describes the activities and outcomes to date of the India Support for Teacher Education Program (In-STEP). The Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University (ASU), is conducting the project in collaboration with India’s Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Our report covers the period from June, 2013 through June, 2014. In the fall of 2013, ASU hosted the first of what will be two cohorts of teacher educators from Indian institutions that prepare the nation’s teachers. The first cohort included 53 educators who educate prospective elementary or secondary teachers or work in state and district offices as curriculum developers and assessment specialists. Our guests came from the Indian states of Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. From January, 2014 to June, 2014, the In-STEP team at Arizona State University focused its efforts on (i) a comprehensive evaluation of the academic program for In-STEP Cohort 1 and (ii) a wholesale redesign of the academic program for In-STEP Cohort 2, as requested by our cooperating partners at India’s Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). This report summarizes our progress on both tasks.

Using a combination of formative and summative assessments and employing both qualitative and quantitative techniques, we have presented our analysis of the impact of In-STEP Cohort 1’s technology training and reform proposal development. We also assess the effect of InSTEP’s specially curated courses on Democracy in Education and Equity and Inclusion. Finally, we present an in-depth analysis of the social networks between participants in the residency program, allowing us to strengthen our understanding of the development of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). All these results are meant not only to help ASU design an even stronger academic program for the second cohort of InSTEP Fellows, but also to facilitate USAID’s and MHRD’s implementation of education-based professional development programs in the future. This report also includes a detailed description of the programmatic design of the academic residency for In-STEP Cohort 2. The new course schedule has been developed at the request of MHRD and is intended to prepare a second cohort of In-STEP Fellows with skills that are different from but complementary to those of the first. On behalf of Arizona State University, our team thanks MHRD and USAID for giving us the opportunity to work with these exceptional educators. We found them keen to learn, passionate about the teaching profession and idealistic about the role India’s schools play in shaping the country’s future. But they are pragmatic and realistic, as well. They understand that the challenges facing them are tough ones – the influx of students triggered by the Right to Education Act of 2009; the poverty and limited educational preparation of students in rural areas; classrooms without electricity, computers or Internet connection or teachers who have no training in how to use what technology they have; training programs long on theory and short on structured practice in schools under the mentorship of master teachers; corrosive discrimination against girls and minorities; among teachers, high rates of absenteeism, a lack of motivation and no experience in modern teaching methods. It is precisely because the In-STEP Fellows are both visionaries and pragmatists that we have high hopes they can make real and positive changes through their reform projects. As one participant, a DIET lecturer, said while watching students in a Phoenix classroom as they worked in teams on school-provided computers, “It will take us 10 years in India to get where these schools are today. But we know what we have to do. It will happen.”

Lessons Learned In working with the first cohort of In-STEP Fellows we garnered insights that will shape the program we offer for Cohort 2. Among the insights that have most influenced our thinking, the following stand out: 1. The more proficient a Fellow is in speaking, reading and writing in English, the more he or she will benefit from the In-STEP experience. • Many of the Fellows in Cohort 1 came to Arizona with limited conversational skills in English and little to no experience in writing in English for academic or professional purposes. While we were struck by how much everyone’s speaking skills improved in three months, many of the Fellows struggled to follow discussions in class and found it difficult to render ideas in their reform proposals with precision and nuance. The stronger English speakers generously helped their colleagues by translating during class – throwing out a life line when someone failed to understand – and they helped us by sketching in the details of reform ideas that their colleagues could not convey in English. Having Hindi-speaking translators and faculty available certainly helped, but translation cannot replace fluency. And in many critical parts of the program – such as observation visits to K-12 schools and Teachers College classrooms – live translation was not possible without distracting students and impairing the flow of the teacher’s lesson. The stronger English speakers in the group

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

25


expressed frustration at being slowed by their less-fluent colleagues, who themselves were even more frustrated when they could not find the English words to express their Hindi ideas. • We encourage administration of a TOEFL exam to applicants and giving more weight to English proficiency in selecting Fellows to participate in this residency. 2. The limited technology skills of many of the Fellows slowed the pace of instruction and made it difficult for them to complete assignments. • Several of the Fellows arrived at ASU having never used a keyboard, and none of them had what we would consider to be advanced technology skills. They had rudimentary facility with Microsoft Word, most had no experience using PowerPoint and many did not know basic strategies for navigating the Internet. • If MHRD could arrange for more intensive technology training in India before the Fellows come to ASU, it would allow us to get into the substance of the In-STEP residency more rapidly. While Intel provided basic training to the Fellows in India, there was a gap between the time they trained and the time they put their new skills to use at ASU. Our IT instructional team would like to collaborate with Intel to see if we can develop a pre-residency training plan that meets the Fellows’ individual needs more specifically. • We plan to move more aggressively and sooner to test and begin improving the technology skills of the second cohort. In addition, we plan to have differentiated training – basic for those without skills, advanced for those with skills – rather than teaching the cohort in one group. 3. The training sessions conducted by the McREL and TAP teams made powerful impressions on the Fellows, but should occur earlier in the residency. • McREL provided our teacher educators with a customized, five-day train-the-trainer workshop based on its proprietary Classroom Instruction That Works curriculum and the Power Walkthrough technique for coaching teachers. The National Institute for Teaching Excellence provided a two-day training in TAP – The System for Teacher and Student Advancement. The Fellows were enthusiastic about both trainings. Many said that going through the process of changing their own mindsets and practices through these trainings gave them insights about how to help teacher trainees develop their teaching skills. • Because the trainings occurred after the Fellows wrote the first draft of their reform proposals, they could not incorporate what they had learned. We plan to schedule McREL and TAP trainings earlier for Cohort 2.

• Classroom visits to Phoenix-area schools made a deep impression on the Fellows. For example, Teachers College puts major emphasis on having master/mentor teachers present in the classroom at all times with the student teacher. The mentors coach the student teachers who intern for a year in their classrooms. In addition to formal training, there is a constant give-and-take between mentor and student teachers when they are working together to plan and teach lessons and lead student activities. The Fellows told us that in contrast, in India it is common for the host teacher to leave the classroom while a teacher candidate delivers a lesson. The aspiring teacher receives little if any feedback on his or her practice. Going forward, we intend to increase the number of ASU faculty and perhaps, graduate students, who accompany the Fellows when they visit schools. We think they will benefit from having experts close at hand to explicate the intricate teacher-teacher-student dynamics that are typical in these training classrooms. We plan, as well, to give the Fellows a specific assignment to complete as part of their observations, and to use it as a map when we later debrief as a group. We did this for one observation this year, and it seemed to improve the Fellows’ understanding. • We plan to build in more time for Fellows to interact with principals and professional development staff in the partner schools. Almost to a person, the Fellows struggled with the “how” of implementing change. They seemed to lack frameworks and practical understanding of how to create training to help teachers improve and to reflect on their own their practice; for example, what sequence of activities would help teachers learn how to collaborate in professional learning communities and create lively, student-centered lessons? For Cohort 1, we brought in one panel of principals to speak about leading change and another panel of teacher educators who had led small reforms. We will build in additional opportunities to learn from educators who have implemented change at their schools for Cohort 2. 5. It is important to learn about the Fellows earlier in the process and to understand the contexts in which they work in India. • For this cohort, we asked the Fellows to organize themselves into geographical groupings (these became their professional learning communities), and we assigned one staff person to conduct group interviews and develop profiles of the Fellows to share with faculty. This took some time. Going forward, during orientation week we will give Fellows a simple template to follow in writing a short essay to introduce themselves to us. This might take the form of a letter: Dear professors, this is where I work, this is who I am and here is the reform I intend to drive. Project staff will build this information into a photo directory of the cohort. In addition, faculty will use the essays as a diagnostic of the Fellows’ writing skills.

4. Both Fellows and partner schools would benefit from additional support when Fellows visit to observe classrooms.

6. Groups who planned together for their residency prior to coming to ASU seemed best able to profit from their time here.

• The In-STEP instructors attended a presentation by ASU’s Global Services Office on cultural differences between India and the United States. It was instructive for us, and we have invited the site coordinators who oversee school partnerships to attend a similar session before the second cohort arrives.

• All the Fellows repeatedly told us that having time to think and deeply discuss challenges with colleagues was a professional gift. The experience ignited new ideas and a freshened commitment to the teaching profession. One group, in particular, however, seemed to get on the plane back to India with an impressively concrete plan of how to work together to drive change in one district – the Meghalaya group. The six members of the group routinely work together in Meghalaya DIETs and the DERT, where David participates in research, policy and management efforts. Before leaving India they strategized a holistic approach to changing how teachers are prepared in their district, addressing classroom environments in teacher training, the supervision of teacher educators, school internships, performance evaluation, the use of

• We have also asked the site coordinators to hold a brief orientation session for the Fellows before they visit schools. While not serious, a few instances occurred in which differing cultural norms caused moments of misunderstanding between Fellows and teachers in the classrooms they were visiting. For example, U.S. schools strictly limit taking photographs of students or asking for names or personal details. The Fellows sometimes unwittingly crossed lines that we will do a better job of pointing out in the next residency.

26

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

ICT and overall systems for managing and continuously improving processes. At ASU, the group worked on their individual reform proposals as a team, anticipating challenges and how they could leverage and support one another’s initiatives. It was impressive. • Our team encourages MHRD to consider supporting formal preresidency teambuilding for all the groups in Cohort 2.

Cohort 1 Program Management “All journeys have secret destinations of which the traveler is unaware”. ~ Martin Buber The quote above applies quite well to the journey of 53 In-STEP Cohort 1 participants, as the program ushered the group into a richness of knowledge and experience of which they were previously unaware.

Background The Institute of International Education (IIE) partnered with Arizona State University (ASU) to implement the USAID-funded India Support for Teacher Education Program (In-STEP), which aims to build capacity of 110 teacher educators from India in an inspiring process of professional transformation. The chosen participants for Cohort 1 who departed for ASU on 28 September 2013, spent three months at ASU and returned with action reform essays to transform teacher education in their home states. Working closely with USAID and the Government of India – Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), IIE/India provided in-country support to ASU in the in-country management of the program that included planning, execution, monitoring and evaluation and activities ranging from need assessment, curriculum design, and study tour formalities including the J1 visa process and a pre-departure orientation (PDO) session for the In-STEP participants.

The Beginning The partnership between ASU and IIE started well before the launch of the academic program through the exchange of ideas and resources on the Indian education system. Our goal throughout was to enrich the program’s design and to create a positive experience for participants. A solid partnership framework was initiated between USAID, MHRD, Intel, ASU and IIE to facilitate a mutually collaborative environment.

Needs Assessment (NA) IIE worked with the ASU team in planning and arranging logistics for the Needs Assessment – an integral part of the program that was initiated soon after the grant formalities were completed. Specific activities included: 1) Selection of needs assessment sites (state level and school level); 2) Itinerary and logistical arrangements in collaboration with MHRD, State SCERTs and USAID; 3) Support in design of needs assessment workshop with nominated participants; 4) Facilitation of needs assessment sessions; 5) Debriefing with the needs assessment team in analysis of data and recommendations for the curriculum and program design; and 6) Accompaniment of the ASU team to two locations to provide all on-ground support, including translation for the site visits. The needs assessment team visited Lucknow, Ghaziabad/Noida in Uttar Pradesh and Patna, Bihar and met with range of stakeholders to enrich the NA data and analysis.

Pre-departure Groundwork The preparations for the study tour started soon after the proposed list of 55 participants was approved by the MHRD, Government of India. This group was comprised of teacher educators, principals and lecturers of District Institute for Education and Training (DIET) from 9 states across India – Assam, Bihar, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Madhya Pradesh, Nagaland, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Due to some unavoidable reasons, two

participants could not travel despite having completed all the formalities, and as a result the final group consisted of 53 participants. Originally the tour was to take place in the first week of September 2013 but the travel dates were rescheduled to 28 September 2013 to accommodate delays in receiving the final delegates’ names. Regular meeting were done with USAID and MHRD and close coordination and follow-up were maintained with ASU during the one month preparation period. Although coming from different parts of the country added to the versatility and cultural richness of the program, 99% of the participants were first-time travelers to the U.S. This made a needs assessment an essential requirement of the program. The needs assessment state visits were conducted by the ASU team along with representatives of IIE and USAID to the states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh as maximum numbers of participants were nominated from these two states. As a part of needs assessment DIET facilities were visited, school site visits were conducted, meetings were held with senior state government officials, MHRD and USAID. However, the highlight of the state visits was meeting the nominated participants from respective states and interacting with them in person to understand their hopes and fears, their inhibitions and expectations from the tour. This needs assessment exercise was an ice breaker for both the participants and the ASU team and provided insight to be kept in mind while designing the training curriculum.

Orientation Workshop In preparation of the orientation session IIE worked with ASU in designing the sessions that would be most beneficial to the group. IIE also participated in series of joint sessions. The ASU team, along with IIE, participated in the two week orientation conducted by MHRD in August 2013 to expose the participants to issues of teacher education in India and facilitate interaction with academicians, experts and practitioners from the field. Namrata Jha, Director, IIE/India, facilitated a session on visioning, hopes and fears, and co-facilitated session with the ASU team. Subsequently, Dr. Shruti Jain, Program Manager, facilitated a session on formalities required for J1 visa. Needs assessment sessions were also done at this orientation to capture participants’ ideas and concerns regarding training at ASU. IIE provided hands on support to each participant to answer queries. IIE also provided troubleshooting in getting the required documents in place, and counseling and guidance on filling out the form correctly. This was one of the main tasks that the IIE team completed, as 90% of the participants were first time travelers, unaware of J1 visa regulations, had limited English language understanding, and everyone was working against time.

Participant Processing Services IIE took the lead on starting the J1-Visa process by getting the J1-visa forms filled by the entire group and by explaining each of the nine J1forms that consists of 1. Biographical Data, 2. Narcotics, 3. Passenger Details, 4. Stakeholders Compact, 5. Conditions of Sponsorships, 6. W-7 form, 7. Certificate of Employment, 8 Certificate of Character, 9. Medical Examination Form. IIE explained each form and provided instructions to complete the forms. Some information that was uniform for all participants was pre-filled in the forms, for example, the length of stay, program name, program objective, and address in the U.S. The J1 visa form completion was a group exercise where the IIE team demonstrated using a sample form to help the participants complete their forms. IIE interacted on an individual basis with each participant to ensure the forms were correctly completed. IIE explained the medical requirements as per the J1 visa guideline and a day-long group medical examination was arranged in Delhi for participants from all over India. A special group medical service was negotiated in advance with MAX Hospital in New Delhi. IIE representatives accompanied the group of participants to get their medical examination done. Medical

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

27


reports were collected from each of the 55 participants, scanned and uploaded into TraiNet along with other J1 visa forms. As a part of J1 visa process, passport scans for all participants were shared with USAID for the Security Risk and Fraud Inquiry (SRFI) clearance. Biographical forms for all participants were shared with USAID as needed for the process. The data gathered from participants was uploaded into TraiNet and exported to USAID’s VCS (Visa Compliance System). VCS has four review and approval stages – R1, R2, Re and R4. The process of moving the data through the stages takes about 8-10 weeks. Once the R3 approval came and DS 2019 forms were received for the participants by USAID, IIE informed and facilitated completion of the DS160 that is needed for the visa interview. IIE worked in close coordination with USAID in securing visa interview dates. Once the visa interview date was final, IIE coordinated the two-day visits of 55 participants from their cities of origin to Delhi. IIE managed all of the logistics around the interview, including participant stay, meals and travel to the Embassy for the visa interview. The entire process required IIE to work with each participant to ensure arrival at the embassy on time, with requisite documents.

Pre-departure Orientation Workshop Out of the final 53 participants, 50 participants were first time international travelers, and as a result they had multiple queries on the day-to-day life in U.S., cultural differences, and general do’s and don’ts. Through close interaction with the participants during the visa process, with approximate 75-90 calls and 60-80 emails every day, IIE developed a deeper understanding on the needs of the participants and organized a tailored pre-departure orientation (PDO) session on 19 September 2013 for the In-STEP participants to provide information related to program details. To keep travel-related information simple, accessible and user-friendly for the group, IIE’s team put together a pre-departure information packet that was delivered to all the delegates at PDO. The packet included all of the information they would need such as a copy of their itinerary, Health I-Card copy, and a basic information document with key contact information for the U.S., and a pre-departure checklist. The PDO day began with words of encouragement from Prof. Janaki Rajan, Head of Department, Department of Teacher Education, Jamia Millia Islamia and Dr. Shoeb Abdullah, Professor, Jamia Millia Islamia. This vibrant opening was followed by a presentation from USAID providing information on the J1 visa including exchange visitor status, importance of the DS2019 form, and returning back after completing the program. Following the USAID section, the IIE team took the lead on providing the participants with a detailed program overview including the key objectives of their visit with special emphasis on the reform proposals that the participants would draft, revise, strengthen, and present formally during the three months training at ASU. Participants were reminded of the importance of this program, and its uniqueness in being first of its kind. A session on academic expectations was facilitated to discuss the changes at their teacher education institutes and programs since 2009. Maintaining the day’s momentum, the highlight of the orientation was the skit put together by the IIE team. They enacted a series of scenarios to explain dos and don’ts in the U.S., including behavioral issues; civic and social issues; and general and safety issues. This was followed by a section on travel and logistics providing information on itinerary details, luggage allowance, airport connections and security tips. IIE introduced the concept of ‘Group Buddies’ to the participants. Four participants were assigned as Group Buddies who supported and lead the group. The Group Buddies focused on travel logistics including check-in, immigration, and security clearance and boarding gate time. A separate meeting with group buddies was conducted to help them understand the responsibility and develop strategy for a smooth travel experience. This proved to be a one of the best practices in managing a large group of travelers in addition to providing leadership opportunities for Fellows.

28

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

A comprehensive pre-departure checklist was also provided to the participants. At the end of the day, there was a Question Hour that provided the participants with an opportunity to get answers to all the questions they had with regard to their travel.

Departure and Post-Departure The group departed for ASU on 28 September, 2013. IIE ensured that the 53 participants were on board the flight and monitored their arrival. Upon receiving confirmation from the ASU team of the arrival of all 53 participants, TraiNet was updated to reflect the changed status of the participants. Once the participants returned to India in December 2013, TraiNet was updated to reflect program completion. During the stay at ASU, IIE was in regular contact with the ASU team to monitor progress and engage with the ASU team on any issues. IIE continued to represent ASU in several coordination meetings organized by MHRD and USAID. After the departure of Cohort 1, IIE represented ASU in follow-up meetings organized by MHRD and USAID to discuss the Cohort 1 experience of training, implementation of their learning, and suggestions/changes in training curriculum for Cohort 2 expected to depart in mid-September 2014. Overall, the residency component of the In-STEP program went smoothly. Dr. Painter played the lead role in organizing the academic program, including scheduling all classes and arranging all discussions about reform proposals between ASU and our colleagues in India. Dr. Barsam oversaw all logistical matters and extracurricular activities, such as reserving apartments for the scholars, securing classrooms for all class sessions, and planning excursions around Arizona and the United States. The two coordinators on the project, Arusyak Mirzakhanyan and Kevin Keller, worked tirelessly on project details and provided support that surpassed expectations to assist Dr. Painter and Dr. Barsam. In addition, it should be noted that the these two individuals acted as first-level responders to the many questions that program participants had about finding materials and answering questions about activities. The logistical team encountered two unexpected challenges during the program that are described below. These issues were resolved quickly, and we have developed measures to prevent them from arising again in the second cohort. Lost Baggage. British Airways failed to make timely delivery of the luggage of 45 of the 53 visiting scholars on the flight from New Delhi to Phoenix. The luggage arrived 48 hours late. The resulting problems were significant: ASU had to distribute per diems more quickly than expected, to allow scholars to purchase new clothes; the logistics teams had to communicate with British Airways regularly to monitor the status of the lost baggage; and the entire contingent was held up in the airport for four hours to register for lost baggage compensation cards. We suspect the cause of the lost baggage was a one-hour layover in Heathrow Airport (a transfer time so brief, in fact, that one participant got lost and was left behind). We recommend that the visiting Fellows next year have a longer layover at Heathrow. Lunch. Before the visiting scholars arrived in Arizona, the logistics team collaborated with a local Indian restaurant to prepare a daily lunch buffet at a fixed price. Once the Fellows arrived, however, we found that a group of them did not want to partake of the buffet because it was unlike the food they ate at home. As a result, for the first several weeks of the program people were regularly dropping out and rejoining the lunch buffet, which caused us to constantly renegotiate our contract with the Indian restaurant and to adjust per diem amounts for each of the affected participants. For the next cohort, we have two possible solutions to this problem. First, we could cancel provision of the buffet, and allow program participants to prepare their own lunches or eat on campus. Second, we could pass out a written survey early in the program asking who wants to partake of the buffet; this would function as a final, official document, and would prevent Fellows from dropping out later and requiring us to alter a contract with the restaurant.

Post-departure Progress and Preparation for Cohort 2

Conclusion

IIE has been regularly following-up with the MHRD and USAID for participant names for Cohort 2. IIE has begun the J1 visa process with a few participants whose names have been provided by MHRD. IIE has started creating a participant list of names received from MHRD. As of June 23, IIE has received 47 names (with 40 passports) from 9 states. IIE has shared passport details for 40 participants with USAID for the SRFI security clearance. IIE has already started communicating with participants to request their details needed for J1-visa process, and has shared forms required to be completed. IIE is following up regularly with the participants through emails and phone calls to get the forms completed and to answer participant queries.

The partnership between ASU and IIE for year one has been a rewarding journey for the IIE team, strengthening the mutual understanding and collaborative work culture. We look forward to an equally rewarding year two for the In-STEP program, and beyond.

As a part of our continuous follow-up with MHRD and USAID, IIE attended a meeting arranged by MHRD on 5 June 2014, along with USAID, INTEL and the academic team, comprising of Indian educators to discuss next steps and schedule for the academic and IT orientation beginning on July 21 in New Delhi. As a part of meeting agenda, the group discussed an ASU July visit to India for to conduct a mid-term evaluation in the states of UP and Assam and to participate in an MHRD orientation. IIE along with ASU is preparing and looking forward to facilitate and support the 2nd cohort of 57 In-STEP participants to ASU.

Lessons Learned The first cohort of the In-STEP program was special in many aspects and there was immense learning for all stakeholders involved. The turnaround of this cohort was very fast – all the formalities for departure were completed within 2.5 months’ time. There was a remarkable coordination between USAID, ASU, MHRD, INTEL and the Indian academic team that helped to put all pieces together and be able to carry out all necessary activities that needed high levels of coordination and collaboration, time management and meticulous planning. Below are a few lessons learned that might be useful for future programs: It was beneficial to the program to have dedicated team members assigned from each institution who were constantly in communication with each other on various developments on a daily basis. A lot of activities were being carried out simultaneously and several of them required adherence to strict timelines, coordination between institutions, coordination among participants, MHRD and IIE, and having a dedicated point person for such coordination helped in smooth coordination. In relation to visa processing, a higher level knowledge of English language (reading, writing) would have helped participants to manage the process better, especially in terms of understanding the instructions and reducing the number of attempts to complete forms Several of the selected participants did not have a passport at the time of selection and this posed challenges in moving forward with the visa process, as the first step itself required passport data. For future programs, it is recommended to complete the selection process as much in advance as possible to allow participants to secure a passport. The joint site visit of ASU, IIE, and USAID was helpful in several aspects including for academic planning, for developing a better understanding of the context, for being able to connect with participants before orientation program, and for initiating ground work for visa processing. Working under a strict timeline with a diverse group of participants for Cohort 1 was extremely challenging, however, it also paved the way for developing innovative solutions. Solutions included creation of a session on “filling up forms” where we arranged for the entire group to complete forms, arrangement for medical checkups for all participants in one day, development of the concept of “group buddies”, and implementation of a session on cultural aspects of living in the U.S.

Cohort 1 Coursework The In-STEP coursework comprised a core course that included trainings by McREL and NIET, an integration course featuring professional learning communities and four required plus two elective modules.

Core Course Suzanne Painter and Chris Clark co-taught the core course. Over and again, Fellows told us that they had read theories of constructivist pedagogy, but had never seen it in action. To give the Fellows explicit models to emulate, the instructors adopted a model-and-think-aloud strategy. They continually deployed constructivist methods such as openended questioning, hands-on activities and collaboration. They lectured as little as possible. Periodically, they stopped to draw attention to what they were doing and thinking and ask the Fellows to reflect on why they were doing it. That was the “how” of the class and perhaps the heart of it as well. Only by internalizing the ideas of constructivism and continually practicing and modeling its methods can teacher educators train others to become constructivist teachers themselves. After the first few sessions, our original plan for the course content was modified. We had intended to emphasize basic knowledge of instructional theories, including such topics as cognitive and linguistic development; motivation; learning and cognitive processes; knowledge construction; teacher knowledge of students; social-cognitive views; personal and social development; group differences; and behaviorist views. However, we quickly determined that the participants had sufficient knowledge in these areas, but it seemed to be inert knowledge – that is, the challenge was not to provide the information, but to help them remember, reinterpret and reorganize what they had already learned academically, and to make this knowledge a part of their practice in both their teaching and leadership roles at home. To that end, we reshaped the course so that the participants would draw on their theoretical knowledge to explain what they were seeing in K-12 classrooms, in University methods classes, and in our class, and, in turn, how they would draw on that knowledge in planning change in their own workplaces. Originally, we had hoped the participants would be able to do some coteaching with our own faculty in methods classes. However, this proved to be logistically difficult for multiple reasons. Instead, we developed a dress rehearsal activity (described below) as an opportunity for implementing strategies such as cooperative learning, project- and problem-based learning, and teaching with technology. Several themes received special emphasis: • Empowerment. During orientation week, participants received a 90-minute briefing on University policies regarding sexual harassment and the expectation for all individuals on campus to be treated with respect. There were many questions to the presenters about the topic. A few weeks later, the module on equity (discussed below) was offered. In addition, participants experienced strategies for inclusion and empowerment daily as we mixed the membership of groups, pointed out instances of inequity that surfaced (for example, instances where men would ignore or interrupt female speakers in small group discussions). We also modeled inclusive practices for individuals with disabilities by making arrangements for a participant who had mobility problems due to polio.

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

29


• Teacher evaluation. Within a larger discussion of the complexities of assessing teacher performance, our participants underwent two-day training in TAP – The System for Teacher and Student Advancement (http://www.tapsystem.org/). ASU is the only university to date to embed this highly praised program of teacher development and incentive into its programs for preparing pre-service teachers. Some participants also saw the TAP system in action during school site visits and had the opportunity to discuss it with professionals there. • Teacher professionalism. Promoting teacher professionalism was a significant concern of the participants, and it seemed to center on teacher commitment to students. We addressed this in the Ethics Module (discussed below), through modeling commitment consistently in our own behaviors and discussing the evidence of commitment observed in school site visits. In addition, Fellows were introduced to video gaming as learning experiences by the developer of a teaching video game, “Teacher Leader: Pursuit of Professionalism.” The game is a problem-based scenario in which users explore solutions to questions about professional conduct in schools. Teachers College faculty have found that the game is an extremely effective way to enable novice teachers to preview problematic situations that commonly arise in schools and to role-play their responses in the safety of a virtual world, before they begin practicing on students and colleagues. In particular, the game’s flexible architecture allows faculty and school leaders to develop and insert scenarios that address highly particular situations in differing locales. The game has proved to be a fast, inexpensive training tool for ASU Teachers College. We would be pleased to arrange in-depth discussions with our faculty developers if MHRD and USAID have interest in a full-scale adaptation and extension of the game for the Indian context.

Modules All Fellows engaged in the following learning modules: 1. Teaching and Learning with Technology. Fellows met with faculty members Drs. Keith Wetzel and Leanna Archambault in an expanded and revised from what was projected due to the technology skill needs of the participants. We added a third faculty member (the project technology coordinator, Dr. Todd Kisicki) and two technology assistants to help during class. The assistants also took questions and provided help every day during the lunch break and into the afternoon where possible. All Fellows trained on and developed projects using Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, Edmodo, Weebly and PhotoPeach. The projects all produced products that teacher educators might use in their classrooms, and leaders might use to provide direction and to communicate with faculty, staff and community. The technology tools were often integrated into the assignments of the core course through coordination within the instructional team. 2. Gender Equity and Inclusion. Because USAID and MHRD emphasized that gender equity and inclusion are areas of high concern, we devoted a particularly robust module to them. In Appendix A, we provide a list of resources the instructor provided the Fellows, with the idea that this may be useful to MHRD. The module was developed and led by Dr. Adai Tefera, a postdoctoral scholar at the Equity Alliance at Teachers College. It included readings, discussions and hands-on practice that were designed to equip teacher educators to become site advocates for gender equity and inclusion in their home institutions. • Unit 1 focused on defining inclusive schools and understanding two frameworks – systemic change framework and the technical, contextual and critical framework as lenses to build inclusive and equitable schools. • Unit 2 focused on understanding and defining power, privilege, equity, and how personal identity is connected to these concepts. We also worked on developing resources for teacher advocates to use to build a plan for gender equity and inclusion in participants’ local schools.

30

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

• Unit 3 focused on preparing teachers on how to address curriculum bias as teacher advocates, how to recognize and disrupt curriculum and interactional bias, and how to define and identify bullying and harassment by using the two primary theoretical frameworks. We used group activities and pedagogical reflections throughout the three sessions to probe participants’ understandings of the connection between concepts introduced in class and practice in the classroom. Reflection questions included the following: 1. In what ways might this activity further your own students’ understanding of inclusive schools? 2. In what ways might the activity need to be modified to be more culturally responsive to your own context? 3. What challenges might arise for you as the facilitator of an activity such as this? For the final assignment, participants were separated into nine groups. Each group was asked to prepare a one-page resource document using concepts from class and readings. The one-page resource document was intended to focus on three different areas: (1) teaching and pedagogical development (e.g. strategies/activities to be used for students to engage in learning), (2) supervising and evaluation/assessment (e.g. rubric, evaluation instruments), and (3) curriculum development (e.g. syllabus and lesson plans). Each of the nine groups provided a five-minute presentation to the class on the one-page resource document produced. Readings and resources were provided via Dropbox and included articles, briefs, websites and videos based on teacher preparation for inclusive schools, gender equity, bullying and harassment, curriculum bias, and scheduled castes and tribes. (See Appendix) 3. Ethics in the Classroom. Dr. Clark and Dr. Painter led this module with curricular support from Ara Barsam. In the first unit, Dr. Clark led a discussion of selected portions of the Hippocratic Oath for physicians – a professional code familiar to the participants. We then asked individuals to develop a few phrases modeled on those in the oath that would encapsulate a parallel professional oath for educators. Then, they brought these individual statements together in their professional learning communities to develop oaths for their profession modeled on the Hippocratic Oath. They really took hold of this exercise, engaging in passionate discussion, writing and debating revisions and searching the Internet for examples of ethical standards in other professions. When time was up, each group printed its oath on poster paper and taped it to the wall. All the Fellows then walked the gallery to read, reflect on and discuss their colleagues’ visions of what it means to be an ethical teacher educator. In subsequent units, the oaths were revisited and revised, and professional ethics were linked to national values of democracies through creation of PhotoPeach essays and reflections on how U.S. values are expressed and represented in national memorials and institutions visited during the Fellows’ visit to Washington, D.C. 4. Democracy, Creating Classroom Climates and Equity. Dr. Gustavo Fischman led this module, which analyzed how notions of democracy and citizenship play out in schools in the United States and India. The main goal of this module was to analyze educational dynamics in contemporary societies in relationship to multiple expressions of the notions of “democracy” and “citizenship.” The Fellows engaged in lively discussions of how social, political and economic factors influences issues of access and equity in educational systems. To encourage further thinking, the professor provided a bibliography and left the Fellows with issues to explore: Changing structures of education and schooling in the 20th and 21st centuries; the educational dynamics associated with the emergence of “knowledge-based economies; and the changing nature of the notions of the “public” and “private” in contemporary democratic societies.

Fellows also had the option of selecting from elective modules including Leadership, Teaching Sustainability and Teaching Early Literacy. The Leadership module was added and then expanded as the reform project topics gave us more clarity on the needs of the participants. Exploration of mathematics pedagogy took the form of intensive observation and discussion of Teachers College classrooms. Fellows took turns observing the class of Dr. Photini Spanias, a researcher who studies motivation in the learning of mathematics and an exceptional instructor. The module Teaching Sustainability was taught by Nobel Laureate Dr. Lee Hartwell and others. The McREL training was a highlight, as reported by the Fellows. In this training, participants studied and practiced the nine research-based strategies described in Classroom Instruction that Works. One of the strengths of this training is that participants also learn how to conduct effective professional development. NIET delivered two-day training in the principles of their teacher improvement system, which consists of data collection during an observation, analysis of the data, and effective coaching strategies to spur teacher improvement. The value of this system is in the naming and identification of effective practices, and the strategies for coaching teachers to change their practice, rather than simply providing a rating and leaving the teacher to struggle with how to improve.

Integrating What They Learned – Professional Learning Communities Faculty member and academic co-director Dr. Sarup Mathur led Fellows in their professional learning communities (PLC), which broke out in 11 geographic groupings: Assam; Bihar 1 and 2; Madhya Pradesh; Meghalaya; Mizoram and Nagaland; Odisha; Uttar Pradesh 1, 2 and 3; and Uttar Pradesh 4 and Uttarkhand. Most PLCs had five members, but some had as few as three or as many as six. The PLCs met weekly with Dr. Mathur to discuss what they were learning and how it applied to their particular challenges in India. As the Fellows developed their reform proposals, the work in PLCs turned increasingly to having “critical friends” review and provide feedback on one another’s ideas and writing. In addition, Dr. Mathur assisted with practical strategies in both change implementation and in her specialty of classroom behavior management, particularly for students with disabilities – an area of concern for the Fellows. PLC sessions also served as collaborative, co-constructed professional development gatherings where Dr. Mathur fluidly incorporated topics and questions of interest to the Fellows. Some of the topics, mostly generated by the Fellows themselves, covered in these sessions are listed below:

showing their work to peers, listening to feedback and being willing to reflect with candor on how to improve – this was difficult and heady stuff for the Fellows to process. But over time, we were gratified as the Fellows began to lower their defenses, trust one another and focus on improving their product rather than protecting their self-esteem. After the first cohort of Fellows returned to India, faculty worked via Skype, email and Edmodo to support them in continuing to collaborate and support one another. See the section titled, “Long Term: Spring 2014 Follow-Up (Adobe Connect & Edmodo)” for more information on these activities.

Technology Component The Cohort 1 Fellows participated in technology workshops conducted by two faculty members, Drs. Keith Wetzel and Leanna Archambault, twice a week for a total of 33.5 hours. Based on the needs of the participants, a third faculty member (the project technology coordinator, Dr. Todd Kisicki) was added along with and three technology assistants to help during class. The assistants also took questions and provided one-on-one assistance during the lunch break and into the afternoon. During these sessions, the Fellows trained on and developed projects using Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, Edmodo, Weebly and PhotoPeach. All projects were designed to have Fellows produce artifacts that teacher educators might use in their classrooms. In addition to the projects, strategies for using technology to provide direction and to communicate with faculty, staff, and the broader community were taught and modeled. The use of technology tools was integrated into the assignments of the core course through coordination within the instructional team. During the program, Uday Macherla, one of the research assistants, worked with the grant’s technology coordinator and leadership team to function in the following capacities: • Prepared new laptops by uploading required programs and virus protection • Assisted Fellows with troubleshooting laptops as needed • Assisted Fellows with participating in video conferencing via Google Hangout (uploading tool, training on tool, troubleshooting) • Assisted Fellows with accessing ASU accounts and ASURITE IDs • Tutored individual Fellows as needed as instructors implement technology rich projects • Monitored basic technology skills as Fellows progressed through the basic skills checklist and tutorial programs • Assisted with one-on-one support for Fellows who were struggling with technology skills during workshop sessions and breaks.

• Ethics and Classroom Behavior Management

• Provided feedback on technology projects as requested

• How to Make Professional Development Work

• Translated written materials and verbal instruction for Hindi speaking participants as needed

• Setting Goals (SMART goals) — Specific — Measurable — Actionable — Realistic — Time Bound • Assessment and Measuring Goals In interviews with the 2013 project evaluator, Dr. Wen-Ting Chung, nearly every Fellow reported that discussions in PLCs and with critical friends were revolutionary and valuable experiences for them. Many Fellows described their culture as one in which people fear to express vulnerabilities, mistakes or not knowing an answer. Listening to other people is not a skill the culture values or promotes, they told us. So

• Accompanied Fellows to technology-related presentations and demonstrations. • Assisted with data collection via online survey tools It was apparent from an early stage that many of the Fellows were ill-equipped for the planned assignments because they lacked some basic computer skills. Even with this challenge, however, the technology workshops and access to the technology assistants helped increase the Fellows’ technology proficiencies over the course of the program. The Fellows were supported by technology assistants who were able to troubleshoot any issues they had with their computers as well as offer assistance to help them complete assignments. As part of the workshops, the Fellows were asked to complete project-based assignments using technology so that they could showcase their knowledge of integrating technology in the classroom.

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

31


In addition to hands-on training, Fellows also participated in a number of relevant field trips to showcase the use of innovative technology in teacher education. For example, Fellows took a field trip to visit the Situated Multimedia Arts Learning Lab (SmaLLab) where researchers demonstrated both science and English language learning activities. For further information about embodied learning at Arizona State University, please visit http://emlearning.asu.edu/smallab The SmaLLab includes an embodied learning environment that implements various elements: • Embodied: Full body, kinesthetic interactivity • Multimodal: See, hear, and physically feel the experience • Collaborative: Face-to-face teaching and learning with digital media This offered Fellows direct interactions with real-world applications of technology for teaching and learning, specifically those focused on embodied cognition. Along these lines, and in response to the request of several Fellows, we arranged for those who expressed interest to participate in SMART Board training offered by CCS Presentation Systems. This provided the opportunity for Fellows to receive much needed professional development focused on the use and integration of SmartBoards in their teacher education programs. For Cohort 2, the technology workshops have been eliminated. Instead, the Fellows will participate in a technology training prior to their arrival at ASU. This training has been co-developed by teams from ASU, MHRD, and Intel. This will allow ASU to get into the substance of the In-STEP residency more rapidly. However, the reduced amount of technology exposure during for the second cohort may have an impact on the ability of ASU faculty to successfully integrate technology into their courses. The Fellows’ progress in this regard should be monitored so that additional support may be offered if necessary.

Additional Visits, Speakers and Guest Instructors The Fellows took an extensive tour of the Charles Trumbull Hayden Library, the largest of ASU’s six libraries, and received hands-on training from library staff on using the digital catalog and conducting advanced searches for research materials related to education. In addition, they spent time at SMALLab (where researchers are developing multisensory learning environments with funding from the MacArthur Foundation and the National Science Foundation); and at the national conference of Teacher Educators for Children with Behavior Disorders. Other speakers and researchers who interacted with the Fellows included: • Dr. David Berliner, Emeritus Professor – “Education and Poverty” • Kamala Green – “Issues in Discrimination”

• Dr. Irina Okhremtchouk – Classification/stratification practices for language minority students, school organization, school finance, and assessment of pre-service teachers • Dr. Margarita Silva-Jimenez – Preparing teachers to work with English learners, especially as it relates to teacher education pedagogy and curriculum • Dr. Catherine Weber – Literacy education, focusing on working with diverse learners in high poverty urban settings. We have included the schedule for the Cohort 1 residency program and class syllabi as appendices. The Calendar of Activities for Cohort 1 is in Appendix B. Appendices C through K contain course syllabi for Cohort 1 (In-STEP 2013).

Classroom Immersion Twenty schools in the metropolitan Phoenix area hosted In-STEP Fellows to observe mentor teachers and ASU student teachers working together in classrooms. Of these, 16 were elementary schools and four were high schools. Together they represent the full range of economic and ethnic diversity in Phoenix, which is the sixth largest city in the United States. As we have noted, these school visits made a deep impression on the Fellows, and we will take advantage of the teachable moment they provide by having additional faculty advisors accompany the Fellows in Cohort 2 when they make their visits. After each visit with Cohort 1, we had vibrant debriefings. Occasionally, the Fellows took issue with something they witnessed in a school, but those observations sparked interesting discussions, as well. If we had to point to just three characteristics of American schools that the Fellows repeatedly remarked upon, they would be: • The well-structured, one-year internship ASU student teachers undergo in real classrooms with master teachers and ASU faculty was admired • The humane, friendly relationship between teacher and student was striking to them • The active, hands-on, everyone-working-together environment of American classrooms was new and impressive to them Following are excerpts from a modified classroom observation tool the evaluator had the Fellows complete after one round of school observations. The guiding questions were: 1. What does the teacher do or say to build relationships with the children? 2. What does the teacher do and/or say to maintain attention on the lesson?

• Veronica Griffin and Sarah Beal – How Teacher Education is structured at MLFTC

3. What does the teacher do and/or say to determine whether students are understanding during the lesson?

• Dr. Karen Harris – Strategies for Effective Professional Development

4. On gender – How many interactions does the teacher initiate with a) girls and b) boys? Of student-initiated contacts, how many come from a) girls and b) boys?

• Dr. Steve Graham – Modeling as a Strategy for Professional Development • Adam Henry, interim director of ASU’s Study Abroad Office, “American Culture: An Insider’s Perspective” • Dr. J. Ronald Lally – Early Childhood Lecture Series: “Learning as the Organization of Possible Futures” • Dr. Molly Ott, Assistant Professor – “Introduction to the American University System” • Dr. Elizabeth Hinde, Associate Professor and Division Director – “Social Studies in Teacher Education” • Dr. Peter Rillero, Associate Professor – “Science in Teacher Education” • Dr. Ron Zambo, Associate Professor – “Mathematics in Teacher Education” Fellows also made observations in faculty members’ teacher education course classrooms. In addition to Dr. Photini Spanias, whom all observed, small groups of Fellows observed:

32

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

Randomly Selected Responses

child psychology adopting by the teacher…For build personal relation with the children, teacher maintain: eye contact, body language, shake hand with children when it is needed, sense of humor, play music to praise him.” “Class was interactive. Teacher was very friendly towards students, frequently asking questions to almost every student, encouraging and appreciating students.” “The mentor teacher started the class…then the teacher candidate started teaching on language with the help of a book named The Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson. Students were very keen to hear her… During time of teaching MT was observing teacher candidate and writing something on a paper.” “The most useful thing I learned from this class was a language learning theory call the Total Physical Response (TPR)…during the course of the lesson…the student teacher was gesticulating a lot. I was following her actions and actually understanding the greater part of what was happening [even though she was speaking Spanish, which I do not]. This is going to be very useful for me and my state which has a lot of multilingual problems.” “…both [the mentor teacher and the student teacher] are nice in teaching, their cooperation in teaching was really good, one was teaching another was supporting…There were three volunteers to support teacher and students [in a class of 22 students]…each activity was of about 14 to 16 minutes, collective reading, peer group reading, questions and answers…all in a well-behaved, organized and well-mannered way. The student-centered teaching and learning, the activity based learning was there. The classroom management was well awesome. I spent two and a half hours there.” “The school visits were helpful in the sense that we were able to see how co-teaching is conducted. Another thing we noticed was that group activity dominated the teaching process and technology was heavily relied on.” “In an effective teacher education programme, the teacher must stimulate the student teacher’s reflection in educational situations on each dimensions of thinking, feeling, wanting, acting and on their interrelations…[This instructor’s] class is a burning example of that… The classes I observed was meant to develop the pedagogical content knowledge…She always related the contents to school situations (i.e. what types of errors do the children show in the class? How you will teach the concept? How will you support the children? Is it important for the kids to discover?) Thus, it is concluded that pedagogical content knowledge should be taught to the teacher candidates.” “Maths class of [this instructor] was very useful for me because of my lack of interest in this subject. From very beginning maths was a difficult subject for me….Although my teacher was good, but he was unable to know the exact reason of my difficulty. I want to learn maths by singing,

by stories, by dance but my teacher every time taught by using only black board. [This instructor] was the teacher as I want. Her teaching approaches, use of various solid materials in developing concepts, giving individual chance to every student, participatory approach make the class much more interesting. No doubt it was a very good class I ever seen.”

Reform Proposals We saw the reform proposals as the primary product of the Fellows’ academic program at ASU. We coached each Fellow to select a reform proposal topic that was likely to make a positive difference in the quality of their professional work at their home institution. As well, the Fellows were instructed to draw from reform topics mandated in the 2009 National Plan for the Reform of Teacher Education in India. Finally, we advised the Fellows to choose an initial reform topic that is modest in scale, increasing the likelihood that these projects will be implemented upon their return to India. The first four weeks of the academic program were devoted to providing theoretical and practical examples of how small-scale reforms can improve teacher education programs. This initial period culminated in the Fellows’ writing and submitting a 3-page précis of their reform proposal topics and the rationale supporting their choices. These 53 précis documents were lightly edited and then submitted to MHRD for feedback and suggestions for improvement. The feedback from MHRD expert reviewers was deeply appreciated and was incorporated by the Fellows in expanded drafts of their proposals. The second and third months of the Fellows’ residency at ASU were devoted to creating fully detailed reform proposals that expanded on the topics outlined in their précis. The Fellows were guided to develop action plans describing in detail what actions they would take to implement their reforms. In addition, the Fellows identified four or five works of published scholarship that would strengthen the rationale for each reform proposal and provide guidance for making the action plan more likely to be effective. Finally, the Fellows developed evaluation plans and instruments useful in documenting the anticipated effects of implementing their reform proposals in India. All of these elements were combined to produce the final reform proposals submitted electronically by the Fellows by December 13, 2013. Of the 53 Fellows, 52 succeeded in submitting complete reform proposals by the required deadline. To increase the probability that each reform proposal would be implemented at home institutions in India, we required the Fellows to design and present a dress rehearsal of the initial implementation session that they plan to hold with colleagues on their return to India. Each Fellow presented his/her initial implementation session to an audience of peers during the week of December 16, 2013. These dress rehearsal sessions were videotaped and documented via professional photography. Most of these presentations incorporated the use of technology and collaborative activities to engage the participants.

Table 1. PLC Assam

When Fellows were asked to share their overall impressions with the American schools they visited, their responses were positive:

Fellow

Workplace and Position

Reform Project Theme

Salkia, Nirupoma

DIET technology lecturer

Technology integration

“Classroom environment is friendly and joyful.”

Bordoloi, Tridib

CTE lecturer

Inclusive classrooms

“During entire period students were well-behaved, making no noise and loving towards their teacher. Both teachers were very humane and affectionate towards each child.”

Bordoloi, Uttam Kumar

DIET lecturer

Technology integration

“…all students were satisfied that they like their Math teacher, therefore they like Math subject…Teacher keeps his attention on all students of his class which is the indication of democratic classroom. Students, with his teacher, dance for few seconds for the relaxation of the mind. It shows

Dutta, Deva Kumar

SCERT professional development specialist

Professional development, DIET teachers

Goswami, Manmayuri

CTE lecturer

School internships, secondary level

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

33


Table 7. PLC Odisha

Table 2. PLC Bihar 1 Fellow

Workplace and Position

Reform Project Theme

Fellow

Workplace and Position

Reform Project Theme

Ghosh, Ratna

DIET principal

Mathematics, TLM

Guru, Nibedita

DIET lecturer

Technology Integration

Kumar, Rakesh and Chouhary, Rakesh Kumar

DIET principal CTE principal

Collaborative and cooperative teaching

Murmu, Daktar

DIET lecturer

Reflective Teaching

Prasad, Sitaram

DIET principal

Teacher education, large-scale reform

Nayak, Tapas Kumar

DIET senior teacher educator

Teaching for Democracy

Rani, Abha

DIET principal

Language teaching and learning

Sarangi, Dibikar

DIET senior lecturer

Reflective Teaching

Fellow

Workplace and Position

Reform Project Theme

Asthana, Shailendra

DIET lecturer

Reflective teaching

Bajpai, RCD

DIET lecturer

Inclusive education

Table 8. PLC Uttar Pradesh 1

Table 3. PLC Bihar 2 Fellow

Workplace and Position

Reform Project Theme

Gopal, Benkat

DIET principal

School internships

Ranjan, Prakesh

DIET principal

Mathematics, primary level

Deepa Sahoo

DIET principal

School internships

Sayeed, Akhtar

DIET principal

Action research

Shanker, G

DIET principal

Learning resource centers

Thakur, Awadesh

DIET principal

Action research

Kumar, Devendra

DIET lecturer

Constructivist learning environments

Ojha, Jai Prakash

Member of the State Resource Group

Reflective teaching

Upadhyay, Amrit

DIET lecturer

Constructivist learning environments (DIET-level professional learning community based on Dufour approach)

Table 9. PLC Uttar Pradesh 2

Table 4. PLC Madhya Pradesh Fellow

Workplace and Position

Reform Project Theme

Fellow

Workplace and Position

Reform Project Theme

Prasad, BrijBihari

Mathematics Coordinator, SCERT

Mathematics, elementary level

Gupta, Shushma

DIET lecturer

Technology integration

Danayak, Atul

Science Coordinator, SCERT

Curriculum reform

Kumar, Alok

DIET lecturer

Technology integration

Ara, Anjum

DIET lecturer

School internships, science

Madhulika, Madhulika

DIET lecturer

Reflective teaching

Jha, Rajni

DIET lecturer

Mathematics, TLM

Singh, Jayshree

DIET lecturer

Constructivist learning environments

School internships

Yadav, Shivani

DIET lecturer

Technology integration

Joshi, Rajneeta

DIET lecturer

Table 10. PLC Uttar Pradesh 3

Table 5. PLC Meghalaya Fellow

Workplace and Position

Reform Project Theme

Fellow

Workplace and Position

Reform Project Theme

Diengdoh, Bashan

DIET lecturer

Supervision of teacher educators

Fatima, Shamreen

Reflective teaching

Momin, Aditie

DIET lecturer

Technology integration

Professional, State Program Office, India Education for All

Nongbri, Baladiangti

DERT, assessment professional

Evaluation, teacher trainees

Singh, Bhagwati

Senior Professional, State Program Office, India Education for All

Constructivist learning environments

Nongrum, David

DERT, Senior Lecturer, Department of Research, Policy Planning and Management

Project implementation and tracking

Tiwari, Deepa

DIET senior lecturer and a department head

Constructivist learning environments

Sangma, Elsa

DIET lecturer

Engagement, teacher candidates

Yadav, Avanish

Education Project Officer, District, India Education for All

Teaching for democracy

Sten, Gracefulness

DIET lecturer

School internships

Table 11. PLC Uttar Pradesh 4 and Uttarakhand

Table 6. PLC Mizoram and Nagaland

Fellow

Workplace and Position

Reform Project Theme

Fellow

Workplace and Position

Reform Project Theme

Mohan, Tina (UK)

DIET lecturer

Reflective teaching

Lalsangzuala, Joseph

DIET lecturer

Technology integration

Nand, Sarvada

District education officer

Constructivist learning environments

Solo, Kriesenuo

DIET lecturer

Inclusive education

Rastogi, Nidhi

DIET lecturer

Inclusive education

Vanlaltanpuii, Fnu

DIET lecturer

Reflective teaching

Singh, Shalini

DIET lecturer

Reflective teaching

34

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

35


Experiencing the United States The In-STEP team prepared a full agenda of activities and excursions to introduce program participants to the culture, history and landscape of the American Southwest. Many of the visits connected with academic themes explored in the In-STEP classroom, while others engaged the Fellows in key civic and cultural activities of the United States and Indo-American community of Arizona. These efforts supported the development of an esprit de corps amongst the Fellows and also provided time for more interaction amongst In-STEP faculty/staff and Fellows. The relationships developed during these outings laid a solid foundation for strong communication between ASU program staff and participants as well as amongst the group which will be leveraged for continued professional support upon return to India. Our programming included: Heard Museum – October 3, 2013. The Heard Museum is the premier showcase for Native American art and history in the American Southwest. In-STEP Fellows received a guided tour of the museum, with dual emphases on the vibrant Native American cultures that flourished in the Southwest during the pre-modern era and the ways in which those cultures influenced modern American life. “The Heard Museum provided a unique cultural learning opportunity for adult learners, teachers who want to learn more. My experience seeing the art, sculpture and variety of resources in the museum caused me to rethink how I can incorporate distinctive curricula into the classroom.” Canyon Lake – October 12, 2013. Canyon Lake is a leading nature destination for residents of Phoenix, Arizona. In-STEP Fellows took a 1.5hour boat tour of the lake, where a local expert discussed the geological history of the area and introduced program participants to the local flora and fauna. “I believe that preservation of nature is very much important for the survival of humankind. Visiting a natural resource like Canyon Lake is worthy for students to know how to preserve as well as conserve nature for the benefit of human beings.” Arizona Sonora Desert Museum – October 26, 2013. The Arizona Sonora Desert Museum is a world leader in development and implementation of sustainable, interactive science education. Participants viewed the raptor free flight show, in which biology experts demonstrate raptor physiology with live birds, and then freely explored the many animal enclosures and geology displays. “I was very impressed by the communication skills between the trainers at the museum and the birds they worked with. As a Teacher Educator, I learned that if the process of communication is well transmitted, the teaching learning process will be more effective.” Kartchner Caverns State Park – October 26, 2013. Kartchner Caverns is a network of recently discovered caves in southern Arizona that has become a national nexus of geological research. In-STEP participants explored the caverns on a guided tour with park rangers and then visited a multimedia museum that explained the history of the region. “This was a unique learning experience to discover many amazing aspects of formation in limestone cave and the delicate ecosystems of limestone caves. I was greatly impressed with the perseverance and efforts of the State of Arizona to preserve the cave and this is something which I would share with my students.” Washington D.C. – November 7-11, 2013. As part of the required Ethics Module, all In-STEP participants joined a day tour of Washington, D.C. Destinations included the Capitol Building, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial and the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial. Participants were asked to examine what sorts of ethical beliefs were supported by the design of each location, and to prepare a photo-essay with their thoughts.

36

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

“I learned about some important values of the American people and also how diverse and beautiful America is across different states. The experience taught me to revisit my background, my roots which nurture and mold me, and how those in turn affect the people and culture around me.” Monument Valley – November 23, 2013. In-STEP Fellows traveled to the Navajo Nation and took a fully escorted tour of Monument Valley, one of the most iconic landscapes of the American Southwest. The tours were led by local guides who were experts in regional history and culture. The tour concluded with a traditional bonfire and Native American meal. “I learned about the physical and geographical features of Monument Valley, as well as I came to know about the Navajo Tribe’s culture. It was a very wonderful experience for me, as it updated my knowledge and broadened my vision about tribal culture.” Grand Canyon – November 24, 2013. Our programming concluded with an excursion to the biggest Arizona destination of them all: the Grand Canyon. After viewing an IMAX film on the geological features of the canyon, In-STEP Fellows took a 3-hour tour of the canyon with local guides in privately escorted jeeps. “I learned about millions of years of geological history and thousands of years of cultural history. The experience made me think about preservation of our natural and cultural resources.”

With the Indo-American Community To complement these excursions, we also cooperated with the local IndoAmerican community to prepare a wide array of events to introduce the Fellows to leading members of the Indo-American community in Phoenix. Community members warmly welcomed the Fellows and offered to network for them here and in India. In turn, the Fellows provided these people of the Indian diaspora with insight into recent developments in the Indian education system. Events included: Welcome Reception – October 4, 2013. Leaders of the local IndoAmerican community generously offered to host a welcome reception for all 53 participants of the In-STEP program. The following news story in the Valley India Times describes the event: Local associations hosted a welcome dinner for Indian Teacher Educators in early October at the IACRF hall. India Association and Indo-American Cultural & Religious Foundation of Arizona (IACRF) in collaboration with other sister organizations Arizona Tamil Sangam, Arizona Telugu Association, Bengali Cultural Association of Arizona, Gujarati Cultural Association, Kannada Sangha of Arizona, Orissa Association of Arizona, and Rajasthani Association joined together to welcome the teachers from India. Everyone enjoyed a delicious dinner, music, and overall had a grand time socializing and meeting with the teachers from India. “The event was attended by 175 persons which included 53 Indian Educators, Mr. Stephen Feinson (Assistant Vice President, ASU) and several ASU faculty members. Dr. Sarup Mathur and Dr. Barsam of ASU were instrumental in coordinating with IACRF and India Association to expose the teachers to the community and its events.” “It was reassuring to find such a large Indian community in Arizona, preserving and promoting Indian culture. I met the same people on many different occasions later, creating a feeling of a true global village.” “The Welcome Reception helped us overcome culture shock and made us connect our new learning with the Indian contingent in Phoenix.”

Navaratri, Durga Puja, and Diwali Celebrations. Participants in the In-STEP program were offered free admission and complementary food at local celebrations of Navaratri, Durga Puja, and Diwali. Delegates from different organizations in the Indo-American community worked with the ASU team before each festival to assure that all logistics went smoothly and that In-STEP Fellows could enjoy a relaxing and familiar environment. “The festivals held by the Indo-American community made me relaxed and socially encouraged to complete my tasks in the best way. We live in a global world – participating in events with the Indo-American community in Phoenix gave me exposure to this phenomenon and helped me develop personally and professionally.” “The collaboration and spirit of help that we found was memorable – we cannot forget it. I now believe that promotion of cultural activities and the colours of diversity helps to make a strong bond between countries.” “I was feeling just like I was living in India, talking in Hindi and relaxing with each other as neighbors. One friend I made even came to visit me at Gateway Apartments later.” Discover India – November 17, 2013. This is the largest event hosted by the Indo-American community all year, in which Indian artisans, vendors and chefs from around the state gather in downtown Scottsdale, Arizona for a celebration of Indian culture and history. In-STEP Fellows enjoyed private coach transportation to and from the festival. “Discover India reflected the true sense of ‘Unity in Diversity’ in India. Now many people in the Phoenix community have become friends of ours. They are also very excited about our reforms.” “I was inspired to see Indians abroad working in groups to build social and cultural identities, all with the goal of establishing relationships between India and America.”

“This was the first party of its kind in my life, and now I know more about American culture. I built good and close relationships with ASU staff and faculty.” In-STEP Holiday Party – December 7, 2013. In-STEP Fellows traveled by private coach to the home of writing coach Kristine Wilcox to join in traditional holiday season festivities. Certificate Ceremony – December 20, 2013. All ASU faculty associated with In-STEP as well as leading delegates from the Indo-American community gathered in historic Old Main on the ASU campus to celebrate the conclusion of the In-STEP program and congratulate participants on their achievements. All In-STEP Fellows received official certificates.

Cohort 1 Curriculum Review Following the conclusion of the residency program for Cohort 1, the lead academic representative from MHRD (Dr. Janaki Rajan) requested a detailed debriefing of the academic program that ASU had developed. In response, ASU compiled the following documentation: • A schedule for the full residency program with an accounting of total number of classroom contact hours • A collection of all reform proposals that had been submitted to date • Class syllabi and required readings for the following modules (listed alphabetically): — Classroom Instruction that Works (McREL) — Core Course and Reform Project Development (Drs. Painter and Clark) — Democracy in the Classroom (Dr. Fischman) — Early Childhood Literacy (Dr. Connor)

With ASU Colleagues

— Equity and Inclusion (Equity Alliance)

The final component of ASU programming was a series of social events hosted by ASU faculty and staff. These events provided In-STEP scholars an opportunity to connect with leading researchers and thinkers at ASU and a chance to understand what social and family life looks like in America.

— Ethics in Education (Dr. Clark)

Dean’s Welcome Reception – October 10, 2013. All ASU faculty affiliated with the In-STEP program attended this event, including Nobel Laureate Lee Hartwell and Dean Mari Koerner of the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College. In-STEP Fellows were able to mingle with their ASU colleagues in a comfortable, professional environment.

— TAP Training (National Institute for Excellence in Teaching)

“The Dean’s Reception was a very rich experience as we got the opportunity to meet the leaders of the Teachers College at ASU, who treated us like family.” “The Dean’s Welcome Reception helped me to get a clear picture about the programme (In-STEP) and the objectives of the programme for the next three months. I met many faculty members of the Teachers College and learned about their professional backgrounds and areas of expertise, which helped me to seek their help and support my own professional development.” In-STEP Halloween Gathering – October 27, 2013. In-STEP participants gathered at the home of project director Ara Barsam to celebrate a successful first month in the program and to partake in traditional Halloween activities, including pumpkin-carving. “This was a terrific opportunity to learn about the culture of the American people. We were able to build cultural belongingness and strong interconnectedness among In-STEP participants and ASU staff and faculty.”

— Reform Leadership (Mrs. Coleman) — Sustainability and Science Education (Dr. Hartwell)

— Technology Workshop (Drs. Wetzel and Archambault) Following a meticulous review of these materials, Dr. Rajan and her team of dedicated Indian experts responded with several proposed adjustments to the residency program for Cohort 2. The two primary recommendations were (i) a shift from a technical approach to teacher training to a more theoretical exploration of issues in education and (ii) a new schedule of academic modules that would include three required courses on foundational topics in education and one elective module in subjectspecific pedagogy. The Indian experts articulated that these adjustments would develop a second cohort of In-STEP Fellows with skills distinct but complementary to the first, thus magnifying the impact of the In-STEP program as a whole. ASU responded to MHRD’s recommendations with a wholesale revision of its academic program. This flexibility was possible due to support from USAID, guidance from MHRD, and engagement of ASU’s Teachers College faculty, many of whom observed the transformational exchange of ideas that took place during Cohort 1 and were eager to participate in the residency program for Cohort 2. As a result of the efforts of all parties in the cooperative agreement, ASU will be able to offer an intensive academic program for Cohort 2 that responds to Dr. Rajan’s recommendations. We anticipate offering the following courses (titles and course description follow).

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

37


Required Modules (all In-STEP Fellows attend) Philosophy of Education (Drs. Cochiarella and Harris) Educational philosophy and critical thinking about teaching and learning are trademarks of the course. Critical reading and writing are embedded into each week’s application projects. Fellows will be required to read several research-based articles and integrate the information into what they observe and experience as In-STEP participants. Various educational topics will be presented weekly so as to analyze different philosophical perspectives as aligned to educational systems. Issues of equity, including gender, race/ethnicity, socio-economic levels, and disability, will be applied to each of the educational philosophy topics. The culminating project for In-STEP Fellows is an Educational Reform Proposal (ERP) that provides a systematic plan for implementing the reforms in their context in India. Critical Reading and Writing (Drs. Blasingame and Clark-Oates) The ability to read and write critically is essential for teacher educators; it is also important that they acquire the skills to engage others in critical reading and writing. The abilities to unpack a discourse involve not only a rich vocabulary and control over syntax but also an understanding of coherence and cohesion and locating a text in its socio-historical context. The basic purpose of this course would be to develop reading and writing skills of the participants so that they acquire fairly advanced levels of proficiency in reading and writing in English; it is hoped that these participants will be able to read abstract texts on education in general and the nature and structure of language and language teaching in particular and they’d be able to translate these texts into the local languages of their respective regions. The skills need to be transacted in a manner that the participants are empowered to critically read any relevant text in the languages they know. Education, Diversity, and Equity (Dr. Mruczek) This course is designed with the goal of equipping In-STEP Fellows with content, contextual, and pedagogical knowledge necessary to become site advocates for equity and inclusiveness in their home institutions. To that aim, classes will be organized to create and sustain an inclusive environment. Instructional strategies include direct instruction, lecture, team-building activities, readings, small and large group discussions, collaborative projects, and presentations. The culminating project for In-STEP Fellows is an Educational Reform Proposal (ERP) that provides a systematic plan for implementing the reforms in their context in India. The In-STEP Fellows will be provided weekly opportunities to connect class content, discussions, and readings to the development of the ERP.

Elective Modules (In-STEP Fellows choose two) Language and Language Teaching (Dr. Okhremtchouk) This course is designed to address several key areas centered on language and language teaching in multicultural contexts. More specifically, during the weekly seminars, In-STEP Fellows will engage in learning and discussions pertaining to the nature of language and the relationships between language, mind and society, systems of communication as well as topics concerning structure of language, the power of language and the relationships between language, education and teaching. To that end, the Fellows will have an opportunity to explore language acquisition theories and processes as well as key concepts of learning in multilingual contexts as these relate to language variations in a classroom with diverse learners, i.e., bilingualism, multilingualism, polylingualism. Additionally, the Fellows will have the opportunity to not only learn and discuss but also apply methods centered on the topic of diversity in a classroom. As part of

the exploration of this topic, critical readings and writing assignments are embedded into each week’s application seminars. Fellows will be required to read several research-based articles as well as engage in reflective discussions and integrate the information into what they observe and experience as In-STEP participants. In that, educational strategies and critical thinking about teaching and learning in multilingual/multicultural context are trademarks of the course. Various educational topics on the subject of language and teaching in multicultural contexts will be presented weekly so the Fellows will have ample opportunities to analyze and apply different perspectives that they can align to educational systems in their home regions. The culminating project for In-STEP Fellows includes components that they can use in their own teaching (their work with preservice teachers) and is as follows: (a) creating a comprehensive course syllabus on the topic of Uses of Language and Language Teaching in Multicultural/Multilingual Contexts, (b) a comprehensive, multistep lesson along with templates that can be used with teacher candidates (pre-service teachers) in their own lectures, and (c) methodological blueprint on the subject of language and language teaching in multicultural contexts that can be used for implementing the reforms In-Step Fellows are charged with in India.

Outcomes of the In-STEP curriculum at the end of 10 weeks – In-STEP Fellows will be:

share their editorials. Group members will give feedback on to rhetorical devices, logic, organization, voice, accuracy of Expression using class rubric.

a. critical readers and writers of theoretical models, conceptual options, rational positions, research, and effective resources/materials.

Group Activity: Reading Critically and Synthesizing Sources. Students will choose one issue in Indian Education and read four articles on the same issue. They will work in pairs to outline a position paper synthesizing the information they have read from the articles, carefully evaluating each for accuracy, bias, hidden agendas and integrating information with their own position.

Mathematics and Its Pedagogy (Dr. Kurz)

Core Course

Students will discuss and list elementary articulation of critical reading skills from the college level.

This course will explore what it means to teach and learn mathematics in a global environment. The course is structured around four topics: 1) the nature and theories of mathematics; 2) approaches to math learning with an emphasis on algebra and geometry; 3) analyzing, studying and assessing math instruction; and 4) implications for teacher education.

Critical Reading & Writing in English (4 hours per week x 10 weeks = 40 hours)

Students will match elementary genres and texts with reading skill outcomes for elementary grades.

Course Description

Students will discuss their experiences, knowledge, training in reading instruction, together building a hierarchy pyramid of reading skills and instruction.

Teaching of Social Sciences (Dr. McArthur Harris) In this course, we will explore the nature of the social science disciplines (history, geography, political science, and economics) and how those disciplines relate to the knowledge and skills needed for social science teaching. We will examine the unique concepts and habits of mind of each of the disciplines as well as different interdisciplinary approaches. Fellows will engage in and apply “high leverage practices” for social science teacher education. Additionally, we will examine how children and adolescents learn social science and consider implications of that learning for teacher education. The final project will be to create a section on Social Science Teacher Education for their Educational Reform Proposals. The section will outline a systematic plan for implementing the social science reforms in their context in India. Science and Its Pedagogy (Dr. Rillero)

b. able to critically analyze with a purpose the similarities and differences between the American and Indian classrooms and teaching practices so as to enrich their own pedagogical practices c. autonomous learners by engaging in peer learning activities via professional learning communities and research

Students will begin their educational reform planning for regional reading and writing curriculum and instruction. Students will work in groups by genre, reading from The Kenyon Review, to list the features of the assigned genre.

d. able to develop new ideas about learning and a child’s potential in the learning of language, mathematics, science and social sciences

Students will evaluate works of different genres from the elementary school level.

e. able to constructively make programmatic and curriculum recommendations for national priorities related to improving classrooms, schools, communities, and teacher education

Table 12. Cohort 2 Course Design

The ability to read and write critically is essential for teacher educators; it is also important that they acquire the skills to engage others in critical reading and writing. The abilities to unpack a discourse involve not only a rich vocabulary and control over syntax but also an understanding of coherence and cohesion and locating a text in its socio-historical context. The basic purpose of this course would be to develop reading and writing skills of the participants so that they acquire fairly advanced levels of proficiency in reading and writing in English; it is hoped that these participants will be able to read abstract texts on education in general and the nature and structure of language and language teaching in particular and they’d be able to translate these texts into the local languages of their respective regions. The skills need to be transacted in a manner that the participants are empowered to critically read any relevant text in the languages they know. The course will be taught by Dr. James Blasingame and Dr. Angela Clarke-Oates.

Application Assignments/Activities

Students will match elementary genres and texts with reading skill outcomes for elementary grades. The class as a whole will discuss the writing process model and writing workshop, listing the issues likely to be encountered Students will work in groups to plan a writing workshop week. The class will confront a list of potential problems in using a writing process model and a writing workshop. Everyone will brainstorm solutions. Students will continue working in groups to plan a writing workshop week, including plans for incorporating solutions to problems and differentiation of instruction. Geographic groups will present their educational reform plan for regional reading and writing curriculum and instruction.

Core Course Philosophy of Education (4 hours per week x 10 weeks = 40 hours)

Course Description

Cohort 2 Curriculum Framework & Organization

Group activity: Read three different pieces (poem, essay, narrative) from The Kenyon Review and apply critical skills from active reading skills. List critical observations about each piece.

Overall Framework about the Curriculum across Courses

Group activity: Define good writing. Create rubric based on Style: Lessons in Grace and Clarity.

The developed curriculum encompasses a wide variety of educational and instructional practices. Instructors for In-STEP Fellows will have a very precise, technical meaning for what they will be teaching and presenting based on their area of expertise/discipline. They will structure, organize, and deliver course content in ways that facilitate or accelerate the learning of each Fellow. Some curriculum materials may appear to be simple or straightforward in nature (for example, such as a list of required readings), but they reflect a deep and sophisticated understanding of an academic content and that of effective strategies for learning acquisition for themselves as well as other teacher educators they will train in their regions.

Individual activity: Write summary or critical analysis for one piece from The Kenyon Review. Jigsaw activity: Summary writers compile list of difficulties in writing summaries. Analysis writers compile list of difficulties in writing analyses. Return to groups and share. Group activity: Read three new and different pieces (poem, essay, narrative) from The Kenyon Review and apply critical skills from Active Reading Skills. List critical observations about each piece. Apply last week’s rubric for good writing to each piece.

Homework: Choose an educational issue from your region and write an editorial for the newspaper. Attend closely to rhetorical devices, logic, organization, voice, accuracy of expression. Groups of three: Students will 2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

Students will continue their educational reform planning for regional reading and writing curriculum and instruction. Students will discuss their experiences, knowledge, training in reading instruction, together building a hierarchy pyramid of reading skills and instruction.

Readings

This course explores the changes in view over time and different cultural and career perspectives of science, the nature of science, science education, science curricula, and technology.

Think/Pair/Share: Read education article provided (26 different articles). Write one positive and one negative review of the article. Share with partner.

38

The entire class will create a rubric for evaluating elementary school materials by genre for suitability for use in instruction

Critical reading and writing are embedded into each week’s application projects. Fellows will be required to read several research-based articles and integrate the information into what they observe and experience as In-STEP participants. Educational philosophy and critical thinking about teaching and learning are trademarks of the course. Various educational topics will be presented weekly so as to analyze different philosophical perspectives as aligned to educational systems. Issues of equity, including gender, race/ ethnicity, socio-economic levels, and disability, will be applied to each of the educational philosophy topics. The culminating project for In-STEP Fellows is an Educational Reform Proposal (ERP) that provides a systematic plan for implementing the reforms in their context in India. The course will be taught by Dr. Martha Cocchiarella and Dr. Pamela Harris.

Application Assignments/Activities Readings Reflective journal entries Presentation of learning and instructional theories Group presentation on assessment techniques 2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

39


Assessment of a practicing teacher on a TAP indicator

Stand-Alone Course

Content Course

Presentation of a designed classroom/environment setting based on philosophical framework

Professional Learning Community (2 hours per week x 10 weeks = 20 hours)

Language and Language Teaching Multicultural Contexts (3 hours per week x 10 weeks = 30 hours)

Course Description

Course Description

In this course/seminar we will facilitate discussions on various theories of adult learning and guidelines on how professional learning communities (PLCs) work towards creating changes in teaching and learning. In-STEP Fellows will learn about the concept, purpose, and essential elements of PLCs, and their role in collective inquiry. In this process of professional learning, In-STEP Fellows will develop a shared mission and vision, articulate collective commitments based on consensus, determine specific goals, and develop plans to pursue and achieve those goals. In small groups, they will have an opportunity to reflect on their own learning and clarify weekly concerns related to their coursework, readings, and other critical issues using the structure of PLCs. The culminating project for In-STEP Fellows is an Educational Reform Proposal (ERP) that provides a systematic plan for implementing the reforms in their context in India. Through this course/seminar, the In-STEP Fellows will be provided weekly opportunities to connect program content, discussions, and readings to the development of the ERP.

Pre-assessment and teacher beliefs survey

This course explores the changes in view over time and different cultural and career perspectives of science, the nature of science, science education, science curricula, and technology. This course is taught by Dr. Peter Rillero.

This course is designed to address several key areas centered on language and language teaching in multicultural contexts. More specifically, during the weekly seminars, In-STEP Fellows will engaging in learning and discussions pertaining to the nature of language and the relationships between language, mind and society, systems of communication as well as topics concerning structure of language, the power of language and the relationships between language, education and teaching. To that end, the Fellows will have an opportunity to explore language acquisition theories and processes as well as key concepts of learning in multilingual contexts as these relate to language variations in a classroom with diverse learners, i.e., bilingualism, multilingualism, polylingualism. Additionally, the Fellows will have the opportunity to not only learn and discuss but also apply methods centered on the topic of diversity in a classroom. As part of the exploration of this topic, critical readings and writing assignments are embedded into each week’s application seminars. Fellows will be required to read several research-based articles as well as engage in reflective discussions and integrate the information into what they observe and experience as In-STEP participants. In that, educational strategies and critical thinking about teaching and learning in multilingual/multicultural context are trademarks of the course. Various educational topics on the subject of language and teaching in multicultural contexts will be presented weekly so the Fellows will have ample opportunities to analyze and apply different perspectives that they can align to educational systems in their home regions. The culminating project for In-STEP Fellows includes components that they can use in their own teaching (their work with pre-service teachers) and is as follows: (a) creating a comprehensive course syllabus on the topic of uses of Language and Language Teaching in Multicultural/Multilingual Contexts, (b) a comprehensive, multistep lesson along with templates that can be used with teacher candidates (pre-service teachers) in their own lectures, and (c) methodological blueprint on the subject of language and language teaching in multicultural contexts that can be used for implementing the reforms In-STEP Fellows are charged with, in India. This course will be taught by Dr. Irina Okhemtchouk.

Building definition of inclusive schools.

Application Assignments/Activities

Journal reflections

Application Assignments/Activities

Readings

Pedagogical reflections

Readings

Adaptive Curriculum

Making connection to ERP

Writing Reflections

Concept Map

Identity Mapping

Background Knowledge Survey

Foldables

Understanding intersectionality

Lesson Plan Parts I, II, III

POE Presentations

Preparation of a Teacher Education Course – Develop a Syllabus

Content Course

Lesson Plan Presentations

Learning Mathematics (3 hours per week x 10 weeks = 30 hours)

Portfolio Development and Presentation

Understanding culturally responsive pedagogy

Course Description

CRP video analysis

This course will explore what it means to teach and learn mathematics in a global environment. The course is structured around four topics: 1) the nature and theories of mathematics; 2) approaches to math learning with an emphasis on algebra and geometry; 3) analyzing, studying and assessing math instruction; and 4) implications for teacher education. This course is taught by Dr. Teri Kurz.

Teaching Social Sciences (3 hours per week x 10 weeks = 30 hours)

Observational analysis of classrooms and interactions Research knowledge & participation: Facilitation by Fellows for readings Creation of a professionalism rubric for their content and educational settings Creation of an interactive teacher training lesson with developed supplemental materials and evaluative tools Presentation of a lesson plan with the integration of domains

Core Course Education, Diversity & Equity (4 hours per week x 10 weeks = 40 hours)

Course Description This course is designed with the goal of equipping In-STEP Fellows with, content, contextual, and pedagogical knowledge necessary to become Site advocates for equity and inclusiveness in their home institutions. To that aim, classes will be organized to create and sustain an inclusive environment. Instructional strategies include direct instruction, lecture, teambuilding activities, readings, small and large group discussions, collaborative projects, and presentations. The culminating project for In-STEP Fellows is an Educational Reform Proposal (ERP) that provides a systematic plan for implementing the reforms in their context in India. The In-STEP Fellows will be provided weekly opportunities to connect class content, discussions, and readings to the development of the ERP. The course will be taught by Dr. Cynthia Mruczek.

Application Assignments/Activities Readings Classbuilder and teambuilder

Equity walk Quote walk Defining power and privilege Anita’s story

Sharing our philosophical statements Classroom equity indicators protocol Funds of knowledge Framework for inclusive schools

Application Assignments/Activities Reflective journal entries Group facilitation, presentation of findings, and peer feedback ERP

Content Course Science and Its Pedagogy (3 hours per week x 10 weeks = 30 hours)

Course Description

School-wide equity indicators observation protocol

Application Assignments/Activities

Systemic change framework

Lesson plan

International school contexts presentations

Use of manipulatives aligned to mathematical concepts

Post-assessment teacher beliefs survey

Constructivism and behaviorism assessment and rubrics

Content Course

will engage in and apply “high leverage practices” for social science teacher education. Additionally, we will examine how children and adolescents learn social science and consider implications of that learning for teacher education. The final project will be to create a section on Social Science Teacher Education for their Educational Reform Proposals. The section will outline a systematic plan for implementing the social science reforms in their context in India. This course will be taught by Dr. Lauren Harris

Application Assignments/Activities Readings Weekly reading responses Syllabus analysis assignment Social science reform proposal

Evaluation & Documentation Our evaluation and documentation efforts were conducted to track our progress in meeting the following two overarching goals: 1) The Indian teacher educators will internalize and apply the practices and methodologies learned at Arizona State University (ASU) in their home institutions, where they will be adapted to Indian contexts and used to enhance the capabilities of India’s current and future teachers. 2) Through documentation of the project, India’s Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) will acquire a model for enhancing the capacity of teacher educators that India can adapt and adopt as a means to transforming the nation’s schools. As indicated throughout this report, all target outputs and outcomes were achieved.1 • 100% of participants attended and participated in courses, trainings, and activities during their stay at ASU (Outputs 1-5). • 100% of participants successfully developed and finalized their reform proposals (Outputs 6 and 7). • 100% of Fellows participated in, and passed, all post-training assessments (Output 8). • Over 90% of Fellows showed an increased knowledge of constructivist theories of learning motivation, and change (Initial 1 and 2). • 96% rated themselves as proficient in technology at post-test compared with 61% at pre-test (Initial 3). • 100% of Fellows indicated that there was at least one person in their learning community with whom they could seek advice (Initial 4). • 100% of Fellows were able to identify at least one example of teacher constructivist practices and at least one example of students actively constructing knowledge in the classroom (Initial 5).

Course Description

• 100% of Fellows included the appropriate action research steps into their proposals and engaged their learning communities during their presentations (Intermediate 1 and 2).

In this course, we will explore the nature of the social science disciplines (history, geography political science, and economics) and how those disciplines relate to the knowledge and skills needed for social science teaching. We will examine the unique concepts and habits of mind of each of the disciplines as well as different interdisciplinary approaches. Fellows

Table 13 (on following page) displays the evaluation progress based on the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan approved by USAID. Results for Outputs 1 through 8 were described in the first Mid-Term Report (submitted DATA). Results for Output 9, Initial 1 through 5, Intermediate 1 and 2, and Long Term (Status Change) are presented here.

1

40

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

This takes into account all ASU collected information and follow-up data.

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

41


Table 13. Progress Report for Outputs and Outcomes on the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Quantitative Data

Indicator

Target

Output 1

The number of participants who took the course to learn theories of learning, motivation, and change.

90-100%

100%

• 16 sessions, 3 hours each • All participants took the module of theories of learning, motivation, and change. There were 3 sessions in which 1-2 students were absent due to sickness. The overall attendance rate is 99%.

Output 2

The number of participants who observed theories in practice within different context (K-12 schools and university classes).

90-100%

100% (K-12) 100% (University)

All participants went to K-12 schools and ASU university classes to observe theories in practice.

The number of participants who participated in seminars and modules in (a) technology, (b) democratic, and (c) inclusive practices.

90-100%

100%

(a) Technology module • 13 sessions, 1.5 hours each (b) Democracy • 3 sessions, 3 hours each (c) Inclusion • 3 sessions, 3 hours each

The number of participants who participated in communities of practice for mutual support as they learned about action research and plan projects (at ASU and in India).

90-100%

Output 5

The number of participants completing TAP training.

90-100%

100%

• 2 days training, 11 hours in total

Output 6

The number of reform plans developed by participants over the course of the project.

100%

100%

All participants developed their reform proposals.

Output 7

The number and percentage of teacher educators successfully completing the reform proposal.

90%

100%

All participants completed their reform proposals.

Number/percentage of teacher educators passing the post-training assessment.

100%

Output 3

Output 4

Output 8

100% at ASU

Description

All participants were assigned to a specific professional learning community (PLC) in which they collaboratively worked with 2-5 members on their reform proposals.

100%

Post-assessment for each required modules are detailed as follows: • Technology: All participants have created a personal website that detailed the projects they completed in this module. • Ethics: All participants developed a “Hippocratic Oath for Teachers” with their PLC group members, and all participants completed a photo-essay that documents the role of ethics in American history and society. • Democracy, Creating Classroom Climates, and Equity: Post-surveys were conducted to assess participants’ learning outcomes in these three modules. The data are ready for analysis.

The number of reform proposals championed by MDRD for implementation in states.

50%

Not yet available.

As feedback comes to ASU through the MDRD, this information will be reported back to USAID. Currently, we do not have this information.

Initial 1

Based on pre- and post-test measures, participants will demonstrate increased knowledge on constructivist theories of learning, motivation, and change.

75%

94%

47 out of 50 participants showed a more sophisticated understanding of constructivism at post-test. There was a significant increase in knowledge of constructivism as indicated from change in pre-test to post-test (p < .01).

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

Target

Initial 2

Based on document review of assignments, participants can identify application of theoretical knowledge (e.g., constructivism) in different contexts and can plan and execute lessons based on constructivist theories by the end of ASU coursework.

75%

100%

For evaluating participants’ capability of identifying application of theoretical knowledge, a classroom observation worksheet was designed and participants were asked to identify the use of theories by K-12 teachers and wrote down their observation while visiting K-12 classroom. Data from these observations indicated that 100% of Fellows could identify at least one example of constructivist teaching.

Initial 3

Based on pre- and post-test measures, participants increased knowledge on technology, democratic, and inclusive practices from the start to the end of the semester.

75%

96%

At post-test, 96% of Fellows rated themselves as proficient in technology, a significant increase from the 61% of Fellows at pre-test (p < .001). For democratic ideology, a significantly (p <.001) smaller portion of the Fellows rated themselves as having the lowest understanding at post-test (67%) than did at pre-test (97%).

Initial 4

Using self-reported surveys, participants report an increase in their collaboration and support skills contributing to successful communities of practice (CofP).

90%

100%

Social survey was conducted, the data analyzed show 100% of participants indicated that they had at least one other participant to exchange ideas with and discuss what was being taught in the program.

Initial 5

Based on instructors’ feedback on class assignments, participants demonstrate increased knowledge of appropriate teacher observation skills, and appropriate feedback/ coaching skills.

75%

100%

Participants’ written reflections on their K-12 site visits show that all Fellows were able to identify at least one example of “students actively constructing knowledge.” In addition, all 53 Fellows were able to identify examples of this in instruction (i.e., “What does the teacher do and/or say to make this [constructivism] happen?”).

Description

In addition, all Fellows took part in TAP training to be certified as reliable observers for effective teacher instruction. This training also provided information on how to coach teachers in effective practices (i.e., postconferencing based on observation scores). Intermediate 1

Output 9

42

Indicator

Actual Performance Data

Output/ Outcome

Actual Performance Data

Output/ Outcome

Quantitative Data

(a) By the end of the ASU training, participants demonstrate teaching strategies based on constructivist theory, inclusion and learner engagement (through demonstration lessons to peers and/or children) and explain relationship of selected strategies to theories as measured by an observation rubric.

50%

100%

Review of the presentations showed that all Fellows interacted with their learning communities, allowed discussion and invited questions during (or after) the presentations.

(b) As measured by an observation rubric, participants practice using technologies for instruction in small demonstration lessons to peers or children by the end of the ASU training.

75%

98%

All but one Fellow used PowerPoint to present their findings to the learning communities. For the one person who did not use PowerPoint, they used poster board but did incorporate a video clip into the presentation.

(c) As measured by a grading rubric by the end of the ASU training, participants’ lesson plans reflect democratic ideals and practices, and such are reflected in practice lessons to the extent applicable. [Note: this information was derived from Fellows’ reform proposals. Because dress rehearsal presentations were not all in English, we are unable to reliably indicate whether they were discussed].

75%

48%

Review of the reform proposals found that 48% of Fellows discussed the importance of and the role of democratic and inclusive ideals in their reform. Understanding that this topic was not required yet chosen, having close to half of the Fellows choose to incorporate these concepts was seen as positive.

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

43


Quantitative Data Output/ Outcome Intermediate 2

Long-Term (Status Change)

Indicator

Target

Actual Performance Data

As measured by blind reviewed grading of action research proposals, participants show increased ability to learn essential elements of action research as measured by a grading rubric by the end of the training.

75%

100%

As a result of the long reform proposals and participant learning, participants’ institutions implement changes teachers in India use methods that explicitly teach and model effective teaching skills that lead to gender equity, democratic ideals, and enhanced achievement for all children.

50%

Not yet available.

Description Given the guidance and monitoring throughout the program that Fellows received from ASU staff and faculty, it was reasonable to find that all Fellows included essential components of action research into their reform proposal. All proposals included a goal, objectives, and action steps. Because the spring 2014 visit was moved to the summer, ASU instructors have not yet had an opportunity to discuss whether changes have been enacted. However, it can be reported that there was ongoing communication, guidance, and support during this time period.

Output 9: Reform Proposals Championed by MDRD

Participants’ answers sometimes included more than one theme. For those participants who include the same theme(s), their answers varied in the level of sophistication for that specific theme and in how well connected one theme was to another. Almost all these themes were related to the concept of constructivism (some themes tapped core constructivist ideas while others were somewhat less relevant). Participant responses were rated on a four-

Table 15. Constructivism Pre- and Post-Survey Comparison Knowledge Level Level 0

Description of Constructivism No information directly relevant to constructivism; or a simple description that learning is a continuous process.

Level 1

Learning/knowledge construction involves mind activities or active participation in designed activities, rather than rote memorization.

Level 2

Based on pre- and post-test measures, participants will demonstrate increased knowledge on constructivist theories of learning, motivation and change. Participants completed pre- and post-surveys, in which they answered the following opened-ended question: “What does it mean to say that knowledge is actively constructed during learning? Answer as completely as you can.” Fifty participants completed the pre-survey and 53 completed the postsurvey. Theme coding was conducted to identify emerging themes from participants’ answers. Table 14 lists these themes.

Beyond recognizing that knowledge construction involves individual mind activities (Level 1), participants pointed out that knowledge construction involves interaction between individual and their situated environments, or that knowledge is situational and has certain views/perspectives based on how personal experiences are constructed in situated contexts. The teacher’s role is as a facilitator, helping provide environments for individuals to construct their own knowledge by interacting with environments.

3 stayed at Level 0 3 moved to Level 2 1 moved to Level 3

7 (14%)

2 stayed at Level 1 5 moved to Level 2

31 (62%)

24 stayed at Level 2; however, their descriptions had clearer connections among themes or elaborated their own training experiences as examples in In-STEP to illustrate it in a more concrete and contextualized way 7 moved to Level 3

Descriptions covered two to four themes. Themes: All. Level 3

Descriptions covered five to nine themes, and explicated how these themes relate to each other in a sophisticated way, to reveal a deeper understanding.

#

Theme

1

Emphasize the contrast between “active” and “passive”.

2

Knowledge construction involves learners participating in a variety of “activities” or “task-based” activities, instead of rote memorization.

3

Knowledge construction involves “relating new experiences/knowledge/information to prior knowledge/experiences”, or “schema” revision.

4

Knowledge construction involves mind/cognitive/metacognitive activities, either described using more general way (it has something to do with “cognitive” process”), or specifically mentioning about “elaborate,” “explore,” “observe,” “explain,” “self-expression,” etc.

5

Knowledge construction is a “meaning-making” process.

6

Knowledge can be/should be constructed through “social construction/collaboration”; e.g., group discussion, dialogue, etc.

7

Learning involves “knowledge validation”; e.g., propose hypotheses and test them, experiment knowledge in real life experiences and examine its applicability.

8

Personal “experience” plays a role; e.g., experiences are where the prior knowledge comes from and where one tests if new knowledge work.

9

Explicitly say that “knowledge is not given” or “not imposed”.

Initial 2: Constructivism – Application

10

Explicitly point out that the process is “learner-centered”.

11

Point out the role of teacher, mostly, a “facilitator”.

12

Explicitly mention that knowledge is “one’s own” construction.

Based on document review of assignments, participants can identify application of theoretical knowledge (e.g., constructivism) in different contexts and can plan and execute lessons based on constructivist theories by the end of ASU coursework.

13

Learning is “situated” in specific time, space or particularly learning context and content.

14

Explicitly mention that learning involves the interaction between persons and their “environment”.

15

Knowledge construction involves learning “views” or “perspectives” and the changes of views or perspectives.

16

Knowledge constructed through active process will “last long”.

17

Explicitly say that learning is a “continuous” or “ongoing” process.

18

Put emphasis on the nature or utility of knowledge without information regarding learners’ mind activities; describe learning as learning facts, general laws, and rules. 2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

Changes in Post-survey

7 (14%)

Descriptions covered one or two themes from the following four themes: 2, 3, 4, and 7.

Initial 1: Constructivism – Knowledge

44

Number (%) at Pre-survey

Themes: 17 or 18

We have not yet received this information, but hope to learn the number of reform proposals that have been championed by MHRD during the follow-up visit with USAID and MHRD in India in July, 2014.

Table 14. Themes Discerned from the Constructivism Pre-Survey

point scale (from 0 to 3), based on the number of themes they included in their answers and how well they connected these themes to reveal a holistic understanding of active knowledge construction. Participants’ answers on the post-survey were coded based on emerging themes generated from the pre-survey answers. Table 15 presents the comparison between pre- and post-surveys, regarding participants’ knowledge levels of constructivism.

Themes: All.

5 (1%)

5 stayed Level 3; however, their descriptions had clearer connections among themes or elaborated their own training experiences as examples in In-STEP to illustrate it in a more concrete and contextualized way

Note. Only 50 out of 53 participants completed the pre-survey, so the comparison was based on the answers of those 50 participants who complete both pre- and post-surveys.

Initial 3, Part 1: Technology

Overall, 47 participants (94%, 47 out of 50) either moved higher levels or showed a more sophisticated understanding about constructivism. There were three participants whose responses fell under Level 0 and stayed at Level 0, without increase of numbers of themes or connections among themes in the post-survey.

Participants were asked to fill out a retrospective survey at the end of the training sessions. This survey contained 16 items with each item representing a specific technology skill. Respondents were asked to rate, on a four-point Likert-type scale (Not at All, Very Little, Some, Almost Always), how well they performed each skill both before and after they received In-STEP training. The items represented a wide range of technical skill, from relatively simple tasks (“I am able to save and retrieve a file”) to more advanced skills requiring more technological proficiency (“I am able to use data collection strategies such as Google Forms to gather information”).

When the Fellows completed the first assessment on their knowledge of constructivism theory, their mean score was 2.5 with a range of scores from 0 to 8. When they completed their post-assessment, their mean score increased to 3.4 with a range of scores from 1 to 8. Using a pairedsample t-test, this was found to be a significant increase (p < .01). Four out of five participants (79%) reported that they would use constructivism in their approach when presenting their reform proposal to the class.

Based on pre- and post-test measures, participants increase knowledge of technology, from the start to the end of the semester.

For this evaluation, a retrospective survey was deemed more appropriate than a pre-test to post-test design because the majority of participants had low levels of technological proficiency upon entering the program. For these people, completing a pre-test survey is likely to have led to confusion or frustration due to their lack of familiarity to the terms and activities described in the items.

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

45


The participant ratings suggest substantive improvement in technological proficiency after participating in the In-STEP training. For each member of the cohort, the rating assigned to indicate performance after the training was higher than the “before In-STEP” rating. This self-attributed improvement was evident on each of the 16 items. The results of within-subjects t tests revealed these gains to be statistically significant,

t(52) = 3.8 – 20.9 (p < .001). Mean ratings are included in Figure 1. In addition, Table 4 documents the frequency for each response option across the items. As shown, no participants rated themselves as “Not a technology user” for any of the 16 skills assessed. Further, 64% of responses indicated either “Advanced” or “Expert” proficiency after training, compared to only 8% before training.

Figure 1. Mean responses on retrospective technology survey I am aware of the basic elements of digital citizenship. I can create a slideshow using a multimedia program such as PhotoPeach. I am able to use data collection strategies such as Google Forms to gather information. I can create a website using Weebly to publish information. I am able to use e-‐mail; including send/receive, forward/reply, save/archive, create/use address books, and send attachments. I am able to use multiple technology tools; including digital cameras and mobile devices. I am able to use Edmodo as a learner and contributor. I am able to use varied communication tools (e-mail, chat, online discussions) to participate in group projects. I am able to use search strategies when using a search engine (such as Google), including the use of keywords. I am able to work with more than one software program at a time. I am able to use create and deliver a presentation using appropriate software. I am able to use word processing software to prepare class materials. I am able to insert pictures into a variety of programs including word processing and web pages. I am able to perform basic operations in a word processing program I am able to save and retrieve a file.

Table 17. Frequency of Responses on Retrospective Technology Survey Not at All

Very Little

Some

Almost Always

I am able to open and exit programs; including starting up and shutting down the computer properly.

Item Before After

0% 0%

9% 0%

17% 4%

74% 96%

I am able to save and retrieve a file.

Before After

2% 0%

23% 0%

13% 6%

62% 94%

I am able to perform basic operations in a word processing program.

Before After

53% 0%

30% 0%

17% 17%

51% 83%

I am able to insert pictures into a variety of programs including word processing and web pages.

Before After

25% 2%

26% 4%

23% 36%

26% 58%

I am able to use word processing software to prepare class materials.

Before After

19% 2%

28% 11%

23% 25%

30% 62%

I am able to use create and deliver a presentation using appropriate software.

Before After

25% 4%

25% 2%

25% 32%

26% 62%

I am able to work with more than one software program at a time.

Before After

26% 8%

21% 8%

30% 30%

23% 55%

I am able to use search strategies when using a search engine (such as Google), including the use of keywords.

Before After

9% 0%

34% 6%

25% 26%

32% 68%

I am able to use varied communication tools (e-mail, chat, and online discussions) to participate in group projects.

Before After

8% 4%

38% 8%

30% 15%

25% 74%

I am able to use Edmodo as a learner and contributor.

Before After

87% 2%

8% 4%

0% 28%

6% 66%

I am able to use multiple technology tools; including digital cameras and mobile devices.

Before After

26% 4%

23% 6%

19% 30%

32% 60%

I am able to use e-mail; including send/receive, forward/reply, save/archive, create/use address books, and send attachments.

Before After

8% 0%

32% 4%

21% 28%

40% 68%

I can create a website using Weebly to publish information.

Before After

91% 2%

6% 4%

2% 45%

2% 49%

I am able to use data collection strategies such as Google Forms to gather information.

Before After

57% 11%

23% 17%

13% 38%

8% 34%

I can run a slideshow using a multimedia program such as PhotoPeach.

Before After

70% 0%

15% 4%

11% 28%

4% 68%

I am aware of the basic elements of digital citizenship.

Before After

42% 4%

38% 8%

15% 38%

6% 51%

I am able to open and exit programs; including starting up and shutting down the computer properly.

1 Before InSTEP

2

3

4

Based on pre- and post-test measures, participants increase knowledge of democratic practices from the start to the end of the semester.

After InSTEP

To assess the effect of the democracy module on the Fellows’ knowledge of democratic practices, pre- and post-surveys with the same three open-ended questions were administered. Questions asked about the relationship between schooling and democracy; the relationship between education and schooling; and the roles teachers can play in the relationships among democracy, schooling, and education.

Table 16. Technology proficiency – Frequencies of response option selection Response Option

Before

After

N

Percent

N

Percent

Not a technology user

3

6%

0

0%

Beginner

18

34%

2

4%

Intermediate

28

53%

17

32%

Advanced

4

8%

29

55%

Expert

0

0%

5

9%

53

100%

53

100%

Total

46

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

Initial 3, Part 2: Democratic Practices (Democracy Module)

In total, 49 (92.5%) of the 53 participants completed the pre-survey, and 52 (98.1%) completed the post-surveys. Forty-eight (90.6%) Fellows completed both a pre- and a post-survey. In order to examine change over time, the analysis below included only those participants who completed both pre- and post-surveys. Because a participant’s answer often included more than one idea, the total code frequency of responses to the question was greater than the total number of Fellows. Pre- and post-survey answers were coded and categorized separately. The Fellows’ answers on the post-survey were more specific and detailed than their answers on the pre-survey. Some of the categories coded on the post-survey did not appear on the pre-survey; for example, teaching

good citizenship, setting good citizenship as a goal of teaching, and teachers as role models. The finding that fundamental components of democratic teaching such as these appeared in the post-survey but not the pre-survey indicated that after participating in the Democracy Module, the Fellows had a better understanding of the democracy concept, and had a clearer vision and plan to implement democratic teaching. Table 18 presents the thematic categories and the number of instances that category was coded for the pre- and post-surveys. The most prevalent categories on the pre-survey were Teachers play an important role (n = 21), Teachers can develop democracy values in students (17), and School can be a place for democratic experience (14). The most prevalent categories on the post-survey were Teachers can build students’ capacities to participate actively in democracy (n = 33), Teachers play a key role (18), and Teachers can create democratic classrooms for students to have democratic practice (14). Although some categories were similar on the pre- and post-surveys (e.g. teachers playing an important role or providing students with democratic practices) the frequency and depth differed. This too indicates that the Fellows increased their knowledge of democratic practices and exhibits potential for implementing democratic teaching in the future.

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

47


Table 18. Categories and Number of Codes on the Pre- and Post-Surveys Pre-Survey Category Sequence

Category

1

Teachers play an important role

Post-Survey Code Frequency

Code Frequency

21

Teachers can build students’ capacities to participate actively in democracy

33

2

Teachers can develop democracy values in students

17

Teachers play a key role

18

3

School can be a place for democratic experience

14

Teachers can create democratic classrooms for students to have democratic practice

14

4

Teachers are the link between education and democracy

5

Teachers can teach good citizenship

9

5

Teachers can teach democracy

4

Teachers can be a democratic role model

9

6

Teachers can motivate students to live democratically

3

Teachers set good citizenship and knowledge and skill as goal of teaching and follow specific teaching principles

9

2

Teachers can be the agents to tie up the relationship

8

5

Miscellaneous

7

School is a place to mold child values beliefs

Others

Miscellaneous

Total

71

The following is an example to show one Fellow’s change in comprehension of teachers’ roles in the relationship of democracy, schooling, and education.

Pre-Survey Answer from Fellow X: As the flywheel to the steam engine. (( ))2 to water so is the teacher for school education and democracy. A teacher is the key for success of democratic set up of government. A teacher can teach the first lesson of equally, inclusion, fraternity, equality consists of all these. So in this way teacher is a social reform.

Post-Survey Answer from Fellow X: Mahatma Gandhi said “we have to be the change we want to see in others” the teachers carry out the tasks to the best of their abilities to achieve the “best for the most”. Then all not only falls into place but the ‘system’, ‘democracy’ and ‘learning’ is up for (( )). To make a difference in education teachers is the sky. The status of teacher reflects the socio-cultured ethos of academic society. Education is at a pragmatic swift due to less effective role played by schools. To fulfill a dream of just, equitable, humane and sustainable domestic society’s teacher’s role is vital. This dream can only be fulfilled through excellence that should be not can act but a habit of a teacher. The teacher’s job is to make sure that (( )) do on the smallest level remain faithful and true to the concept of teaching others for their own growth and for the growth of their and others own surroundings in a positive way. So the roles teachers can play: 1. Guide for side. 2. Ensure participation of all students. 3. Provide learning opportunity for all students. 4. Develop shared vision of all students and complement them. 5. Care, love, respect, lead, entrust to try to learn a safe and (( )) environment. 6. Plan and be well-prepared to become one to get prepare in the field the least they can do that students remain the best treat. 7. Be happy and maintain pleasant environment for (( )) development of students. 8. Create warm and protective environment for mutual trust. 9. Discover common hobbies – have fun with students. 10. Insert democratic values into the community education. 11. Must respect the diversity of students and give love and caring attitude.

2

Category

(( )) represents unintelligible text. 48

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

2. Take care of individuals’ specific need. Six pre-survey answers were classified under this category. On the post-test survey, the number of classifications rose considerably, to 14.

Specifically, only six participants included one or both of these themes on the pre-test survey while 18 included one or both within their post-test survey responses.

3. Give opportunities for each individual to achieve his or her full potential. Only one pre-survey response and five post-survey responses fell on this category.

• “What change do you believe needs to take place to prepare future educators to create more equitable and inclusive schools?” Pre- and post-survey answers were coded and categorized separately. Similar to the findings for questions 1, the Fellows’ answers on the preand post-surveys fell under the same three primary categories: school wide change, teacher training program change, and societal change. Whereas in the pre-survey, various change suggestions were mentioned 71 times, in the post-survey, various changes were mentioned 112 times, increasing by 57.7%. The biggest increase was found with regard to societal change (150%); followed by school wide change suggestions (75%). Details are presented in Table 19.

Equity in education does not refer to “equal” treatment, access, or opportunity, but rather how education can adapt and account for individual differences/needs and provide resources accordingly to ensure all students can realize their potential. Given this conceptualization of equity, participants with responses classified under Categories 2 and 3 were identified as people who understood the core spirit of the concept. As noted above, after participating in the inclusive training module, more participants provided responses indicative of this understanding.

Table 19. Frequency (N) of Suggested Changes on Pre- and Post-Survey School-Wide Change

Teacher Training Program Change

Societal Change

Total

Pre-Survey

32

31

8

71

11

Post-Survey

56

36

20

112

111

Increased (%)

75.0%

16.1%

150.0%

57.7%

In summary, from the pre-survey to the post-survey, the Fellows’ response change not only indicated that they had increased their knowledge of democratic practices, but also indicated that many of them established a vision as how to implement the democratic teaching in India.

Initial 3, Part 3: Inclusive Practices (Equity Module) Based on pre- and post-test measures, participants increase knowledge of inclusive practices from the start to the end of the semester. To assess the Fellows’ increase in knowledge on inclusive practices, pre- and post-surveys with the same four open-ended questions were administered. Questions asked about the Fellows’ ideas regarding equity; to give an example of how “gender inequity” affects student learning and educational outcomes; to give an example of how “caste and tribe” affect student learning, educational access, and outcomes; and what change the Fellows believe needs to take place to prepare future educators for creating more equitable and inclusive schools. In total, 51(96.2%) of the 53 participants completed both a pre- and a post-survey. Because a participant’s answer often included more than one idea, the total code frequency of responses to the question was greater than the total number of Fellows. For the comparison purpose, the analysis below included only those participants who completed both pre- and postsurveys. In order to examine change over time, the analysis below included only those participants who completed both pre- and post-surveys. • “What do you know about the idea of ‘equity’ in education?” — After coding and categorizing the answers on the pre-survey and post-survey separately, we found that both the answers on the preand post-survey fell under the following three primary themes : 1. Give equal opportunity, treatment, and access. The majority of answers fell within this category. On the pre-survey, 45 responses fell under this general theme for equity in education. On the post-test survey, this number fell to 33. This theme was far more prevalent than any of the other themes.

Transformation was not only reflected in the number of suggested changes, but also in the content. Comparing the Fellows’ answers on the pre- and post-surveys, we found that the Fellows’ answers on the post-survey were rather specific suggestions at the operational level, while most of their answers on the pre-survey were general, conceptual statements. This not only reflected their growth in comprehending equity or inclusion conceptually, but also revealed their ability to associate these concepts to their educational practices in India. Below is an example of one Fellow’s responses to question 4 on the pre- and post-surveys.

Pre-Survey Answer from Fellow X: Knowledge of inclusion, equity, gender balance, SC.ST, minority educations, every girl child in school. Access excellence and impact is key to prepare future educators to create more equitable and inclusive schools.

Post-Survey Answer from Fellow X: • Aware and motivate future educators for equitable and inclusive classrooms. • Orient and faired for how school become inclusive (strategies and skills). • All students, parents and other members of school community will be welcomed and respected. • All members of the school community feel safe, comfortable and accepted. • Every student should be supported and inspired to succeed in a culture of high expectation of learning. • All staff and students value diversity and demonstrate respect for others and a commitment to establishing a just society. • Develop and implement on equity and inclusive education policy and guidelines for the institution/school. • Institutionally create and support a positive climate that foster and promote equity. Inclusive education and diversity. 2

• Institute takes the following steps for: • Shared and committed leadership. • Equity and inclusive education policies and practices. • (( )) and transparency. This example not only shows the Fellow’s increase in knowledge of inclusion, but also his/her developing view of the need for change in preparing future educators to create equitable and inclusive education in India. He/She described the changes from the point of view of students, teachers, parents, schools, and community members. This allowed for commenting on inclusive policy, shared leadership, positive school climate, respect for diversity, inspiring every student’s success, inclusive strategies and skills, and commitment to a just society. In conclusion, the Fellows’ responses to the questions on the pre- and post-surveys demonstrated that after participating in the program, their knowledge about inclusive practices had grown and there existed a potential for them to implement inclusive education in India.

Initial 4: Social Survey Using self-reported surveys, participants report increased collaboration and support skills contributing to successful Communities of Practice (CofP). Fellows were grouped into PLCs early on in the In-STEP program to foster a support system that would benefit their academic and professional efforts both during the program at ASU and after their return to their home institutions. The PLCs were determined primarily by region (geographic proximity). More information about the PLCs and the professional development activities they carried out together can be found in the Professional Learning Community section. Participants were asked to fill out a survey designed to measure the participants’ social interactions, both among fellow In-STEP participants and ASU program staff. The purpose of this survey was to evaluate how social interactions and professional learning communities play a role in teacher educators’ professional development and long-term reform actions. The survey contained six questions, with each asking about participants’

(( )) represents unintelligible text. 2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

49


social interactions during their professional development training while in the United States. For each item listed below, participants were provided a sheet on which the name of each In-STEP participant and ASU program staff member were listed and were instructed to check the box beside each name if they connected with this person in the manner described in the item stem. The Fellows were listed on the survey in groups, by their professional learning communities (PLCs). 1. When you have a problem with your learning activities (e.g., learning course materials, doing assignments, preparing presentation, etc.), to whom do you go for advice? • 83% of participants indicated that they had sought help from at least one other member of their PLC when experiencing a problem during a learning activity. 2. Are there people who come to you for advice in case they have a problem with their learning activities (e.g., learning course materials, doing assignments, preparing presentation, etc.)? • 75% of participants indicated that during the course of the program, another member of their PLC had asked them for advice about a learning activity. 3. With whom do you discuss or exchange ideas for your learning in general in In-STEP? • 89% of participants indicated that they had at least one other person in their PLC to exchange ideas with and discuss what was being taught in the program. 4. In your leisure time after you came to the US for In-STEP training, whom do you get along or go out with, e.g., to travel around the US, to buy groceries, to have dinner, etc.? • 88% of participants indicated that they had at least one other person in their PLC with whom they got along with and with whom they spent leisure time. 5. From time to time, you may need or want to talk to somebody about important personal matters. With whom do you discuss important personal matters here in the US? • 77% of participants had at least one other person in their PLC with whom they felt comfortable talking about personal issues while they were in the United States. 6. After leaving the US, going back to India, with whom do you think you will be keeping in touch? • 96% of participants indicated that they were likely to remain in contact with at least one other member of their PLC after returning to India. For questions one through five, participants were also asked to rate the frequency of their interaction with each checked person using a five-point scale (“Only Once or Twice,” “Sometimes,” “Often,” “Most of the Time,” “Almost Always”). The first few pages of the social survey are included as Appendix L. To inform whether the In-STEP participants demonstrated the collaboration and communication necessary to create successful communities of practice (CofP) the following were calculated and interpreted: • Inputs and Outputs: Calculated at the individual-level, outputs are simply the number of In-STEP participants indicated for each survey question. Inputs represent the reciprocal – the number of other participants who indicated that they collaborated with any given In-STEP cohort member.

3

• Network Density: For this indicator, the survey responses were conceptualized as coming from a social network with 52 actors. Network density provides a measure of the interconnectedness among network actors and represents the percentage of possible connections actually observed. The statistic is calculated by dividing the number of possible connections by the number of actual connections. • Frequency Ratings: Also calculated at the individual-level, average ratings provide self-report information on the frequency at which interactions occurred for each of the indicated relationships between cohort members. Calculated as the mean (or median, when indicated) rating across all indicated participants.

Connections among In-STEP Participants Advice Seeking. The median number of outputs for survey Q1 was eight, indicating that, on average, each In-STEP participant asked eight other members of the cohort for advice when they had trouble with a learning activity. Although the mean number of outputs for this question was higher (12.74), this mean skewed higher due to one member who indicated that they asked all 52 of the other participants for advice. When the frequency of advice seeking was examined, no discernable pattern emerged – some cohort members appeared to seek frequent advice from a limited group of peers while others sought frequent advice from many cohort members. For those who sought advice infrequently from others, a similar pattern arose in that the number of people contacted was not related to number of inquiries made. Some who contacted only a few peers did so once or twice and others did so many times. Last, the survey results suggest that advice seeking was prevalent among many of the geography-based groups but not others. The within-group density for advice seeking ranged from 75% (for the Assam PLC) to less than 17% (for the PLC composed of participants from both Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand). The density matrices for each question (1 through 6) can be found in Appendix M. General Discussion and Exchange of Ideas. Every participant indicated that they had at least one other participant to exchange ideas with and discuss what was being taught in the program. As with advice seeking, the responses were idiosyncratic – some participants interacted with a very limited number of colleagues and others indicated that they exchanged ideas with everyone at least once over the course of the program.3 An examination of the outputs revealed that the average In-STEP participant discussed their learning and/or shared ideas with 10 other cohort members, of which two to three were geographic PLC group members (and 7-8 were not).4 The within-group densities suggest that discussion among PLC group members was quite frequent. Specifically, 82% (9 of 11) of the PLCs realized a density equal to or greater than 50% and four connected at a density of 80% or higher. Camaraderie and Trust among Cohort Members. While the other survey questions asked about specific collaborative behaviors or circumstances, responses to questions four and five inform the group climate of the cohort more generally. Specifically, responses to question four inform whether a general sense of camaraderie existed among group members while responses to question five speak to the level of trust that existed among cohort members. Together, these questions may inform whether or not the overall climate was positive and the cohort members interacted with one another with a spirit of good will. With regard to general congeniality among cohort members, every (100%) participant indicated that they had at least one other person who they got along with and with whom they spent their leisure time. The average In-STEP participant indicated they got along with 9-10 other cohort members. Of

In a group the size of In-STEP Cohort 1, there is potential for individual differences with regard to introversion versus extroversion. It is possible that this result (and that reported for advice) is indicative of sample characteristics rather than program quality. Even so, the finding that each Fellow identified at least one person with whom they could confer is promising for future CofPs.

4

these, an average of three were members of the same PLC, suggesting that members of the geographic groups were collegial with one another. Due to the unintended confusing phrasing of the question (double-barreled – get along with and spend leisure time with), it is difficult to evaluate the overall cohort responses of the between-PLC group dynamics. If someone was not indicated on any individual form, it is not possible to conclude that they did not get along with this person as it could simply mean that they did not have occasion to spend time with that person outside of the program activities. In addition, all In-STEP participants had at least one person who they felt comfortable talking about any personal issues that arose over the course of their time in the United States. On average, participants indicated six other cohort members with whom they talked about personal matters. Of these, an average of two were members of their own PLC group and 3-4 were non-group members. However, it appears that not all participants had a network of people they engaged with in this way. For example, two participants only indicated one other cohort member and an additional eight only indicated two others. It also appears that not all participants felt comfortable talking with others in their PLC about personal things. Overall, nearly one-quarter of participants (12 of 53, 23%) did not indicate another PLC member as having been someone they had talked with. Keeping in Touch. Above all the others, responses to the final survey question, “After leaving the US, going back to India, with whom do you think you will be keeping in touch,” provide the strongest evidence that In-STEP participants will continue to collaborate and form Communities of Practice as they attempt to implement their reform proposals in their home country. The median number of outputs was 24.5, indicating that, on average, each In-STEP participant thought they were likely to maintain contact with nearly one-half (25 of 52, 48%) of their colleagues in the cohort. Additionally, the within- and between-PLC group densities suggest that cohort members were likely to remain in contact with the others regardless of whether they will be close geographically when they return to India. The lowest within-PLC group density was sizable, at 60% (the first of four PLCs with participants from Uttar Pradesh). Further, the density for five of the twelve groups was 100% and nine of the twelve were equal to or higher than 75%. The PLC groups demonstrating 100% density were comprised of participants from the following geographic areas: Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram/Nagaland, and Uttar Pradesh. The between-PLC group densities were also high, suggesting that participants were also confident they would remain in contact with their peers who may, after returning to India, not be close geographically. The highest betweenPLC densities were 96% (Meghalaya and Assam; the second and third groups from Uttar Pradesh). Although the lowest observed density was only 18% (between Mizoram/Nagaland and the second Bihar PLC), this was the only between-PLC comparison with a density lower than 33% (The second lowest, 34%, occurred between the first Uttar Pradesh PLC and the Mizoram/Nagaland participants).

Connections between In-STEP Participants and ASU Program Staff Additionally, participant responses to survey question six indicate that the large majority of the In-STEP cohort was confident that ASU staff members would continue to serve as professional colleagues after the program ended. Even the lowest indicated staff member was still checked on nearly 70% (69.2% or 36/52) of the valid surveys. In addition, 8 of the 11 (73%) of ASU staff members were checked on over three-quarters of the surveys received. Overall, the pattern of responses to all survey items indicates that the ASU staff members successfully created and maintained a professional atmosphere that encouraged dialogue among ASU staff (teachers) and Fellows (students). Interactions appeared to focus more on advice giving and “constructive” discussions about learning rather than personal discussions or the sharing of leisure time.

Initial 5: Class Assignments Based on instructors’ feedback on class assignments, participants demonstrate increased knowledge of appropriate teacher observation skills and appropriate feedback/coaching skills. There were two components included to increase Fellows knowledge of observation in the classroom. First, Fellows participated in K-12 site visits where they took observation notes and then debriefed as part of classroom activities. Second, Fellows participated in TAP training which detailed teacher observation strategies, coding for reliability on a 19-indicator scale, and how to coach during post-conferences to increase teacher effectiveness. According to observation notes from the K-12 site visits, all Fellows were able to identify at least one example of “students actively constructing knowledge.” In addition, all 53 Fellows were able to identify examples of this in instruction (i.e., “What does the teacher do and/or say to make this [constructivism] happen?”). These activities were embedded into coursework throughout the program. Further, all Fellows completed TAP training, completed observation protocols, worked in groups to attain reliability across scores, and practiced coaching techniques based on observation scores (i.e., post-conferencing). Outside TAP evaluators worked with Fellows to increase knowledge and understanding of the rubric, scoring, and use of the information. All Fellows successfully completed this training.

Intermediate 1: Reform Proposal Presentations (a) By the end of the ASU training, participants demonstrate teaching strategies based on constructivist theory, inclusion and learner engagement (through demonstration lessons to peers and/or children) and explain relationship of selected strategies to theories as measured by an observation rubric (b) As measured by an observation rubric, participants practice using technologies for instruction in small demonstration lessons to peers or children by the end of the ASU training. (c) As measured by a grading rubric by the end of the ASU training, participants’ lesson plans reflect democratic ideals and practices, and such are reflected in practice lessons to the extent applicable. The end of the Fellows’ participation in the program included a presentation of their reform proposals. To meet the Intermediate 1 deliverable stated above, each presentation was videotaped and then reviewed by the evaluation team. It should be noted that these presentations were dress rehearsals, intended for practice, and the level of formality varied greatly from one to the next. Some presentations were very informal, consisting mainly of a group conversation; while others were very formal and included organized set of PowerPoint slides to guide the presentation and discussion. Videos of the presentations included an introduction, discussion of the reform proposal, and then a question and answer session. The majority of videos included all three sections, although there were three videos that were cut off before the question and answer portion of the presentation. Videos typically lasted between 25 and 30 minutes (however, the range was 20 minutes to 53 minutes). All but one Fellow (52 out of the 53, 98%) used a PowerPoint demonstration. For the one Fellow who did not use a PowerPoint demonstration, he used organized, pre-written poster board and presented a video clip. The PowerPoint presentations were shown to each group through the laptop or in about half of the cases using a projector to show the PowerPoint. Review of the PowerPoints (and one poster) showed that all Fellows (100%) included: the title of their project, the context, objectives, action plan, benefits to participants, and a final “thank you” slide.

Median used.

50

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

51


Reviewing the video clips of all the presentations, raters indicated that all learning groups appeared engaged in the presentation (as measured by note taking and eye contact) and all interacted with the presenter during the question and answer period (as measured by observation). In addition, many created active learning experiences during the presentation that allowed for dialogue among participants. There was only one case of a discussion that became a debate with members arguing their own perspectives, otherwise all dialogue was rated as respectful.5 Interestingly, there were close to half of the presentations where the Fellows’ introduction served as a summary of their experiences at ASU. One person mentioned that he was planning on sharing that information with his colleagues in India. One Fellow stated during her presentation that she learned, “American people don’t just talk, but they learn from each other.” Others stated that they learned how to incorporate active learning and a “collaborative approach” into their own practice based on the teaching of Drs. Chris Clark and Suzanne Painter.

Intermediate 2, Part 1: Reform Proposal Topics As measured by blind reviewed grading of action research proposals, participants show increased ability to learn essential elements of action research as measured by a grading rubric by the end of the training. The In-STEP academic program was designed to be a model of applying the philosophy and approach of constructivism, democracy and equity in teaching. The instructors applied the philosophy and approach of constructivism, democracy and equity in their teaching. Considering that each Fellow came

from a different background, philosophy, experience, and technology skills, the instructors recognized that it would be most productive for each of the Fellows to rely on his/her knowledge of their schools and administration departments to create an individualized reform proposal. They encouraged the Fellows to seek help and feedback from their peers, reflecting the constructive philosophy in forming learning communities, and encouraging active participation in the process. With this approach, the instructors set the groundwork for sustainable learning communities in India. The goal was that upon their return to India, the Fellows would be able to rely on the members of their learning community, as well as colleagues at their home institution, to support and help each other. The instructors, as facilitators, supported and encouraged their reform in India, and guided their learning and teaching.

Focus

In-Service Teachers’ Professional Development (11)

Pre-Service Teachers’ Education (17)

Focus

Number of Proposals

Percentage

Classroom Practice (24)

Inclusive classroom

1

46%

Self-appraisal

1

Reflective teaching

5

Co-teaching

3

Mathematics teaching pedagogy

4

Reading teaching pedagogy

1

With the feedback and suggestions for improvement from MHRD experts, instructors, and peers, the Fellows expanded their final reform proposals greatly from their proposal Précis. One example of how feedback and guidance may have enhanced their reform proposals were the changes in topics from broad ideas and plans to more specific operational plans. Indicative of this, the majority, 38 (71.7%) Fellows revised their Précis titles to make them more specific and accurate for their final reform plans. For example, one Fellow changed his/her title from “Reforming in Teaching Social Science” in the Précis to a more specific title in the final proposal of “Improving Classroom Transaction Process in Social Science for Student Teachers.”

Science teaching pedagogy

1

Democratic curriculum development

1

Collaborative approach

1

Peace education

1

Learner-centered approach

1

Monitoring teaching effect

1

Activity-based teaching

1

The Fellows proposed to enact reform in the following three areas: in-service teachers’ professional development, pre-service teachers’ education program, and classroom practice. Table 20 includes more detailed information on the specific research topic areas.

Learning environment

1

Technology integration

1

Intermediate 2, Part 2: Reform Proposal Scoring

Note: This table reflects a total of 52 proposals; two Fellows cocreated a proposal.

Table 20. Specific Reform Proposal Topics Area

Area

Number of Proposals

Percentage

Technology integration

2

21%

Leadership

1

Resource center

1

Activity-based teaching

1

Cross-checking

1

Inclusive education

1

Conversation group

1

Constructive teaching

1

Post in-service training support

1

Professional learning community

1

School internship

5

Assessment of pre-service teachers

1

Performance evaluation of teacher educators

1

Project implementation

1

Active class participation

1

Pre-service teacher’s evaluation competence

1

Technology integration

4

Democratic classroom practices

1

Professional learning community

1

Transaction methodology

1

Building upon constructivist approaches and technology integration, examination of all reform proposals indicated a focus on themes emphasized by ASU instructors. While topics differed, the aim of all proposals was to establish a democratic and inclusive school or classroom environment. Additionally, all the final proposals highlighted the three key elements of context, reform rationale, and action planning. All proposals included outcomes or potential benefits, and objectives or goals. Although the Fellows had varying levels of English proficiency, the instructors emphasized functionality and content in the writing of proposals, rather than focusing on specific grammar and word use. All proposals included mention of an assessment or evaluation in general; however, only 69.2% of the proposals incorporated a detailed evaluation plan.

Intermediate 2: As measured by blind reviewed grading of action research proposals, participants show increased ability to learn essential elements of action research as measured by a grading rubric by the end of the training. As delineated in Table 21, there were 12 rating categories, each scored on a scale from 1 to 3. The categories were chosen to assess the inclusion of content imparted via the In-STEP curriculum, the thoroughness and goal-oriented nature of the proposed action plan, and the clarity and organization of the presentation. Each reform proposal was reviewed utilizing this rubric.

Table 21. Reform Proposal Scoring Rubric Category

Score 1

2

3

1. Introduction/Rationale

The significance of the problem was not clearly stated.

The significance of the problem was mentioned but not backed up by evidence.

The significance of the problem was clearly stated and backed up by evidence.

2. Work/Community Context

The context of the targeted school or institution was not mentioned/ described; not enough information.

The context of the targeted school or institution was mentioned/described but not enough information.

The context of the targeted school or institution was clearly described, with a lot of information provided.

3. Change/Reform/ Innovation

The necessary reform/changes were not clearly described; not enough information provided AND the reformer’s role was unclear.

The necessary reform/changes were not clearly described; not enough information provided OR the reformer’s role was unclear.

The necessary reform/changes were clearly described with a lot of information provided. The reformer’s role was clearly described.

4. Objectives/Action Plan

The objectives were not described well and were not applied to a reform plan. Little or no mention of an action plan AND did not outline steps.

The objectives were described well but not applied to a reform plan. Did not detail the steps to be taken.

The objectives were described well and applied to a reform plan. Steps to be taken were clearly outlined.

33%

5

Some of the presentations were in English and others in Hindi. Some presentations fluctuated between the two languages. The raters being English-speaking used non-verbal cues and tone of language when it was unclear what was being said.

52

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

53


Score

Category

1

2

Category

3

5. Constructivism

No discussion or inclusion of active learning approaches.

Briefly mentioned/incorporated active learning approaches.

Exemplary inclusion of active learning approaches.

6. Technology 1

No mention of technology in reform plan.

Mention of technology in reform plan but its usefulness/value was unclear

Embedded technology in reform plan and explained how it is useful/valuable.

7. Technology 2

No inclusion of images, videos, graphics, tables, spreadsheets, etc.

Tech inserted was either minimal, not clearly tied to content, or not well placed.

Demonstrated useful inclusion of tech.

No discussion of diversity/ inclusiveness/equality .

Mention of diversity/ inclusiveness/equality.

Thorough discussion/incorporation of diversity/inclusiveness/equality.

9. Literature Review

Little or no inclusion of references/ articles, OR articles did not fit the problem stated in the introduction AND the section did not focus on the appropriate points of the problem.

The articles either did not fit the problem stated in the introduction or did not focus on the appropriate points of the problem, or need more references/not enough info.

The articles fit the problem stated in the introduction and touched on the appropriate important points of the problem.

10. Conclusion

The main goal was not summarized.

The main goal was not summarized well.

The main goal was summarized well.

11. Implications for Practice

The implications for future practice were not detailed AND were not well thought out/insightful.

The implications for future practice were not detailed OR were not well thought out/insightful .

The implications for future practice were detailed and were well thought out/insightful (what will be different?).

12. Organization/Writing

The proposal was not well organized (for example, it may have been hard to follow the logic), AND there were multiple spelling/grammatical errors.

The proposal was not well organized (for example, it may have been hard to follow the logic), OR there were multiple spelling and grammatical errors.

The proposal was written well, well organized with no, or very few, spelling and grammatical errors.

Table 22, below, displays some descriptive analytics about the reform proposals. Almost all (94%) of the proposals used an introduction to present the significance of the problem. Half used evidence to reinforce their claims. The context of the Fellows’ institutions and communities were described in

Maximum

Mean

SD

1

3

2.34

almost all of the proposals (98%) and 84% were considered to have provided a lot of information about context. The explanation of the necessary reform was clear and detailed in 79% of the proposals. All of the proposals outlined the objectives of the reform and 75% of them included a thorough description of the objectives and how they apply to the reform plan. Eighty-four percent of Fellows integrated at least one type of visual aid, such as tables, pictures, figures, etc. in their proposal documents. Some proposals may have benefitted from a stronger conclusion, but almost two-thirds provided a detailed, insightful, and well-thought out discussion of the implications for future practice. Although the extent of organization and writing fluency varied across proposals, it was clear that all Fellows had a compelling vision for change.

Score Frequency 1

2

3

0.81

20%

25%

55%

10. Conclusion

1

3

2.00

0.84

34%

32%

34%

11. Implications for Practice

1

3

2.55

0.59

5%

36%

59%

12. Organization/Writing

1

3

2.45

0.63

7%

41%

52%

Long Term: Spring 2014 Follow-Up (Adobe Connect & Edmodo)

8. Inclusive & Democratic Ideals

As discussed in Intermediate 2, Part 1, the reform proposal targeted topics such as PLCs, technology integration, constructive teaching, and inclusive classrooms. Although it was not required that the Fellows incorporate more than one component of the In-STEP curriculum in their reforms, an impressive 70% discussed technology integration, constructivism, and democratic/ inclusive classrooms in their proposals.

9. Literature Review

Minimum

Adobe Connect The overall purpose for maintaining contact with the Fellows via video conference over the course of the spring was to keep a supportive, accountable pressure on the Fellows to implement adjusted versions of their reform plans – to actually take action, in spite of many challenges. Adobe Connect software was used for video conferencing. Participating Fellows clearly enjoyed having follow up contact with Drs. Suzanne Painter and Chris Clark, and with one another. Table 23 below illustrates the video conference schedule for January through May of 2014. It was observed that shorter meetings (30 minutes) with fewer participants worked better than longer meetings with larger numbers of invitees.

Technical problems with audio, Internet access, and bandwidth on the India side complicated the meetings throughout the spring. Having Uday Macherla (Technology Assistant) join each meeting online helped. Attendance varied from 100% of invitees at some meetings, to other meetings for which only one or two of 5-6 invited were online at the prescribed time. Dr. Painter sent follow-up email messages to absentees and received many individual status report updates via reply email. In general, we have reason to believe that Adobe Connect support from a distance provided valuable motivation and encouragement to implement appropriately modified versions of Reform Plans. As well, we believe that this model of follow up support makes it more likely that Fellows will continue to implement small scale, local reforms in their teacher education programs and to offer one another ongoing support as Critical Friends.

Table 23. Video Conference (Adobe Connect) Support Meetings with In-STEP Fellows Dates

Groups

Agenda

January 22-23

UP1/UP2, UP3/UP4/Miz/Nagaland Odissa/Meghalaya, MP/Assam, Bihar1/2

Initial implementation, meetings w/PLCs, adjustments to reform proposals

February 18-19

UP3, UP4, Miz-Nagaland, UP1, UP2, MP, Bihar1, Bihar2, Assam, Odissa, Meghalaya

Action taken since 22 January, next action steps, connections with critical friends, research journal entries

March 18-21

UP3, UP4, UP1, UP2, MP, Bihar1, Bihar2 Assam, Odissa & Miz-Naga, Meghalaya

Action taken since 22 February, next action steps, connections with critical friends (when & content), research journal entries (# & content)

April 28-May 6

UP3, UP4, UP1, UP2, MP, Bihar1, Bihar2 Assam, Odissa & Miz-Naga, Meghalaya

a. Instrumental changes – one or two actions that you have taken that are new. b. One way that you tend to act differently as a teacher and as a leader. c. One new insight since you returned home and began to implement changes. d. Inspirational change – one thing that has given you energy to keep going.

Edmodo

Table 22. Reform Proposal Document – Descriptive Results Category

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

SD

1. Introduction/Rationale

1

3

2.48

2. Work/Community Context

1

3

3. Change/Reform/Innovation

1

3

4. Objectives/Action Plan

2

5. Constructivism

Score Frequency 1

2

3

0.63

7%

39%

55%

2.82

0.45

2%

14%

84%

2.77

0.48

2%

19%

79%

3

2.75

0.44

0%

25%

75%

1

3

2.14

0.67

16%

55%

30%

6. Technology 1

1

3

1.68

0.77

50%

32%

18%

7. Technology 2

1

3

2.21

0.71

16%

47%

37%

8. Inclusive & Democratic Ideals

1

3

1.64

0.75

52%

32%

16%

54

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

Another use of technology for ongoing communication with the Fellows included two Edmodo websites. These sites were used with the Fellows while they were at ASU and when they returned to India. Fellows and instructors could share public information as well as private communications with each other using these secure sites. Edmodo is a free resource that can be utilized by Fellows for their own work and also to post assignment information, collect assignments, and share resources. The India In-STEP Learning Class group website was for general information and for information specific to the reform proposals. The other group, India In-STEP Technology Workshop, focused on technology support. Two examples are below:

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

55


After guidance from ASU faculty and their PLCs throughout winter and spring, Fellows continued to work on their reform proposals. They revised and modified activities based on their initial experiences implementing their plans. In addition, many Fellows started collecting data so they could evaluate the impact of the program. While Fellows reported some barriers (as would be expected with any institutional change), they continued with their projects showing perseverance and commitment. PowerPoint presentations (instructions included in Appendix N) were submitted to Edmodo mid-June for additional feedback and suggestions. Fellows presented their implementation of activities, initial data collected, barriers to implementing, and potential benefits. Further, Fellows were asked to reflect on and discuss their experiences implementing change. This activity was meant as a way to maintain the relationship between Fellows and ASU faculty and their PLCs in order to extend collaborative discussions, helping the Fellows in realizing their reform.

Appendix A: Cohort 1 Resources – Gender, Equity, And Inclusion Resources by Topic Teacher Preparation for Inclusive Schools

addresses the situation of children with disabilities worldwide and the importance of getting them into school. It also contains interviews and commentary from stakeholders and experts and some 50 educational resources such as toolkits and policy guidelines] (http://www.unesco. org/archives/multimedia/?s=films_details&id_page=33&id_film=213)

Gender Equity Articles 1. Dutt, Shushmita (2010). Girls’ Education as Freedom? Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 17(1), 25-48. [This article describes an alternative program in India that builds critical and contextual considerations into their curriculum]

Practitioner Briefs and Reports 1. WORLD ATLAS of Gender Equality in Education UNESCO – Institute for Statistics (UIS) – March 2012 (See PDF). [Uses maps to provide a global perspective on gender equity issues] 2. King-Thorius, K. (2010). Gender Equity Matters! Equity Matters Series, The Equity Alliance. Retrieved From: http://ea.niusileadscape.org/docs/ FINAL_PRODUCTS/LearningCarousel/Gender_Equity_M atters.pdf [This practitioner brief is an excellent tool for pre-service teachers. It provides an over-view of the issues and strategies for creating more equity]

Articles

Websites

1. Oyler, C. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive and critical (special) education. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 34(3), 201-218. [This article can be used to think about how to build critical and contextual considerations into a teacher preparation program. This article provides an overview of a teacher preparation program for equity-based inclusive educators]

1. Documentaries About Gender in India (http://realtalkies.wordpress. com/2012/12/30/documentaries-about-gender-in-india/) [These short documentaries provide a macro-perspective of gender equity issues in various forms across India]

2. Lin, M., Lake, V. E., & Rice, D. (2008). Teaching anti-bias curriculum in teacher education programs: What and how. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 187-200. [This article could be used with pre-service teachers. It shows how a teacher preparation program prepared teacher candidates to integrate anti-bias or diversity curriculum with the regular curriculum]

3. EdChange by Paul Gorski (http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/ papers/genderbias.html) [Professor Gorski’s website offers not only this blog on gender equity, but many other resources to create more equitable education practices]

Practitioner Briefs and Reports 1. Equity Alliance’s Learning Carousel [The Equity Alliance has a Learning Carousel, which houses the best research-based practitioner briefs and facilitator manuals on inclusive education. You can do a search or click on a section of the framework for resources. The resources we provided in your bags are available on the Learning Carousel] (http:// ea.niusileadscape.org/lc)

Website 1. The Equity Alliance [The Equity Alliance is the organization that provided you with the three day Gender Equity and Inclusive Education Learning Module. We are devoted to creating and sustaining inclusive schools. You will find many helpful resources on our website including the Learning Carousel, our Advancing the Conversation video commentaries, and our Equity Blogs] (http://equityallianceatasu.org/) 2. Teaching Tolerance – Teachers Promoting Equity (http://www.tolerance. org/toolkit/front-lines) [This is a useful tool for preparing teachers to be site advocates. It provides suggestions for educators working to promote equity]

Video 1. UNESCO (not available with Chrome) [This tool can be used to provide a global overview of educational access for people with disabilities. It is a film that uses footage from schools in Kenya, Finland and Turkey, it

56

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

2. UNESCO Gender Equity Page (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/ unesco/themes/gender-equality/) [This website provides useful publications such as the Gender Equality Action Plan]

4. Teaching Tolerance-Sexism: From Identification to Activism (http:// www.tolerance.org/lesson/sexism-identification-activism) [A lesson plan for grades 6-12. Students will develop strategies to challenge sexism in their personal lives, in the school or in the community]

Videos 1. Recommended Documentary Miss Representation http://www. missrepresentation.org/the-film/ [Although the US is often touted as a model for gender equity, this film exposes how mainstream media contribute to the under-representation of women in positions of power and influence in America. The film challenges the media’s limited and often disparaging portrayals of women and girls, which make it difficult for women to achieve leadership positions and for the average woman to feel powerful herself]

Bullying and Harassment Articles 1. Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 38-47. [In this article the authors review research on individual, peer, and school contributions that may be critical factors for enhancing efforts to address bullying among students]

Practitioner Briefs and Reports 1. Gonzales, J. & Hamilton, K. (2011). Addressing bullying and harassment. Equity Matters Series, The Equity Alliance. Retrieved From: http://ea.niusileadscape.org/docs/FINAL_PRODUCTS/ LearningCarousel/Addressing_Bullyi ng&Harassment.pdf [This practitioner brief is an excellent tool for opening up conversations about bullying; what is it? Why does it matter? What can we do about it?] 2. Prevention of Bullying in Schools, Colleges, and Universities: Research Report and Recommendations (2013). The American Educational Research Association (AERA). Retrieved From: http://www. aera.net/Portals/38/docs/News%20Release/Prevention%20of%20 Bullying%20in%20Schools,%20Colleges%20and%20Universities.pdf [This 2013 report through AERA was created by lead researchers on the topic of bullying. One chapter specifically focuses on genderrelated bullying]

Websites 1. National Bullying Prevention Center: The end of bullying begins with you (http://www.pacer.org/bullying/) [Website offers bullying prevention resources that are designed to benefit all students, including students with disabilities. Includes focused resources for parents, kids, and youth] 2. Espelage Against Bullying (http://espelageagainstbullying.com/index. html) [Professor Espelage leads her undergraduates and graduate students to create safer schools. Website includes a ‘Resource’ tab with additional web-based resources on bullying] 3. Teaching Tolerance Bullying Links (http://www.tolerance.org/exchange/band-aids-bullying) [A sample lesson plan for students grade 6-8] (http://www.tolerance.org/lesson/bullying-quiz) [A lesson plan for grades 6-12 to raise awareness about the prevalence of bullying and its detrimental effects for all involved]

Videos 1. Advancing the Conversation Series School Bullying and Safety by Professor Dorothy Espelage Video: https://vimeo.com/63341955 [Professor Espelage gives an overview of bullying and how schools can become safer]

Curriculum Bias and Learning Materials Articles 1. Frawley, T. (2005). Gender bias in the classroom: Current controversies and implications for teachers. Childhood Education, 81(4), 221-227. [Article that discusses the destructive nature gender stereotypes create in learning] 2. Gender Bias in School Textbooks, Amruthraj R.M (n.d.) [This article describes a study on curriculum biases in India]

Practitioner Briefs and Reports 1. Mississippi Tool [This is a tool the Equity Alliance created to examine curriculum and instructional biases in Mississippi] 2. Using the Mississippi Tool PowerPoint

Websites 1. Anti-defamation League (http://www.adl.org/education-outreach/ curriculum-resources/c/additional-anti-bias-resources.html#. Ulh9k9KsjTo) (http://www.adl.org/education-outreach/curriculumresources/c/creating-an-anti-bias-learning-environment.html#.Ulh_ ENKsh8E) [A set of resources provide tips, toolsand strategies for K-12 educators, administrators, students and family members to promote

diversity and anti-bias behavior in learning environments and society] 2. Institute for Humane Education (http://humaneeducation.org/blog/tag/anti-bias/) [Anti-bias resources such as lesson plans, books, and web-based tools]

Videos 1. Ted talk with Colin Stokes (http://www.ted.com/talks/colin_stokes_ how_movies_teach_manhood.htm) [Ted talk on what the media not only teaches girls about girls, but also what it teaches boys about girls. This could be a critical tool for helping pre-service see gender bias in things we see every day]

Scheduled Castes and Tribes Practitioner Briefs and Reports 1. Sedwal, M. & Kamat, S. (2008). Education and Social Equity with a Special Focus on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Elementary Education. Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity. Create Pathways to Access, Research Monograph No. 19. National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA). [The paper focuses on issues related to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It assesses progress towards universal elementary education in India, and also highlights the persistence of social inequity that characterizes the Indian elementary education scene and discusses various strategies pursued for bridging the gaps] 2. Derman-Sparks, L. & Edwards, J. (2010). Anti-Bias Education for young children and ourselves. National Association for the Education of Young Children. [A guide for anti-bias education. Anti-bias work provides teachers a way to examine and transform their understanding of children’s lives and also do self-reflective work to more deeply understand their own lives]

Websites 1. Teaching Tolerance-My Multicultural Self (http://www.tolerance.org/lesson/my-multicultural-self) [Lesson plan for grades 3-12. Before endeavoring to develop cultural knowledge and awareness about others, students must first uncover and examine personal social and cultural identities. Guided self-reflection allows them to better understand how social group memberships inform who they are] 2. Teaching Tolerance-Stereotype Blasters (http://www.tolerance.org/exchange/stereotype-blasters) [A lesson plan for students in grades 9-12. Students debunk cultural stereotypes through their own experiences]

Videos 1. India Untouched: Research Documentary! (Screened in Satyamev Jayate 8th July 2012) (http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=lgDGmYdhZvU) [A documentary that explores the issue of untouchability in India]

Additional Resources 1. How People Learn: Introduction to Learning Theories developed by Linda-Darling Hammon, Kim Austin, Suzanne Orcutt, and Jim Rosso. The Learning Classroom: Theory into Practice A Telecourse for Teacher Education and Professional Development. Retrieved From: http://www.stanford.edu/class/ed269/hplintrochapter.pdf 2. Singal, N. (2006). Inclusive Education in India: International concept, national interpretation. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 53(3), 351-369. 3. Singal, N. (2007). Working towards inclusion: Reflections from the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1516-1529.

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

57


4. Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. Documentary: http://www.halftheskymovement.org/ Book: (http:// www.amazon.com/Half-Sky-Oppression-Opportunity-Worldwide/ dp/0307387097/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381532433& sr=1-1&keywords=half+the+sky+turning+oppression+into+opportunity+f or+women+worldwide

Thursday, Oct. 10

Friday, Oct. 18

9:30-10:30 – Sarup Mathur: PLC

9:30-11:30 – Core Learning Class

10:30-12:30 – Technology module

11:45-1:00 – Dr. Molly Ott, Assistant Professor in Higher and Postsecondary Education – Highlight talk and lunch conversation with interested Fellows

Appendix B: Cohort 1 Calendar of Activities6

5:00-7:00 – Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College: Dean’s Welcome Reception

Monday, Oct. 21

Friday, Oct. 11

9:30-12:00 – Core Learning Class

9:30-12:00 – Core Learning Class

• Weekly Theme: Context, Topic Selection and Literature to support Reform Proposal Précis

1:30-3:30 – Technology Assistance 2:30-3:30 – Voluntary lecture – Borders, Frontiers and Global “Western” Schooling: Conceptual perspectives for comparative-historical research presented by Dr. Marcelo Caruso, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany

ASU Modules

Hours

Core Course (Drs. Clark and Painter)

64

Technology (Drs. Wetzel and Archambault)

33.5

1:00-3:00 – Work in regional groups and work on reform précis 3:00-5:00 – Technology assistance on ASU email accounts

Implementation and Professional Learning Communities (Dr. Mathur)

12

Saturday and Sunday, Oct. 12-13

Gender and Equity (Dr. Tefera and Equity Alliance)

9

• Navarati Garba

Ethics in the Classroom (Dr. Clark)

6

• Diwali Mela/Asia Today Asia

Democracy and Education (Dr. Fischman)

12

Reform Leadership (Kay Coleman)

15

Early Childhood Literacy (Dr. Connor)

11

Sustainability (Dr. Hartwell)

9

• Daserah

Hours

Classroom Instruction that Works

40

TAP: The System for Teacher and Student Advancements (National Institute for Excellence in Teaching)

16

• In this document, ‘Technology Assistance’ refers to a time when technology experts were available to assist In-STEP scholars one-onone with any queries.

Monday, Oct. 7

• Dr. Sarup Mathur’s module was broadly divided between two foci: Strategies for Successful PLC’s and Implementing Reform in an Indian Context. We have indicated the primary focus of each lesson in this document.

9:30-12:00 – Core Learning Class

Saturday, September 28 – Arrival

• Divide into 11 regional groups for PLCs

Monday through Friday, Sept. 30 – Oct. 4

• Initial Data Collection

• Orientation to U.S.A. and ASU:

• Review of MHRD Teacher Education Reform document

• Task – Selection of reform topic • Introduction of requirements of reform précis

— Setting up apartments, grocery shopping

1:00-3:00 – Initial work in regional PLCs, assignments on reform précis

— Bank accounts

3:00-5:00 – Technology assistance on ASU accounts

— Professional photographs and ASU ID cards

Tuesday, Oct. 8

— Campus tour

9:30 – 12:00 – Technology class and further orientation

— Sexual discrimination and harassment workshop (Kamala Green)

1:00-3:00 – Work in PLCs and work on reform précis

— Cultural orientation workshop (Adam Henry) — Distributing and setting up of individual computers — Introduction to ASU library system (Marc Mason) Saturday & Sunday, Oct. 5-6

Wednesday, Oct. 9 9:30-12:00 – Core Learning Class 1:00-3:00 – Continued work in regional groups and work on reform précis 3:00-5:00 – Technology assistance on ASU email accounts

Observations in Dr. Photini Spanias’s math methods classroom • 9:00-10: 15 – Group 1 • 10:30-11:45 – Group 2 • 12:00-1:15 – Group 3 9:30-10:30 – Sarup Mathur: PLC

• Weekly Theme: National Policy, Research and the Practice of Good Teaching

10:30-12:30 – Technology Module

• Presentation by Sarah Beal and Veronica Griffith • This presentation will explain the structure of ASU undergraduate teacher preparation programs. The presenters are ASU faculty who have experience as K-12 teachers, teacher education faculty, and program coordinators. Site visits to school districts

BLOCK ONE – DELIVERABLE: Précis of proposed reform to send to MHRD for approval on Oct. 28, 2013.

Tuesday, Oct. 22

9:30-12:30 – Core Learning Class

Tuesday, Oct. 15 Notes:

1:00-4:00: Technology Assistance/Professional Learning Communities Work Time

Monday, Oct. 14

1:30-3:30 – Key Features of ASU Teacher Preparation Program Intensive Training Sessions

1:30-4:00 – Introduction to Professional Learning Library at the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College by Dr. Heidi Blair

• Observations in classrooms • Conversations with the site coordinator who is the liaison integrating • University and school partner work. Wednesday, Oct. 16 9:30-10:30 – Core Learning Class 10:30-1:00 – Panel of ASU teacher educators who have implemented small-scale reform projects • These individuals planned and implemented a series of small-scale reform projects over two years, culminating in their dissertation research projects. They were also full-time instructors in our teacher education program for graduate students preparing to be teachers.

2:00-5:00 – Diversity and Equity module provided by experts affiliated with the Equity Alliance Center. Wednesday, Oct. 23 9:30-12:30 – Core Learning Class 1:00-4:00 – Technology Assistance/Professional Learning Communities Work Time Thursday, Oct. 24 Observations in Dr. Spanias’ math methods classroom • 9:00-10: 15 – Group 1 • 10:30-11:45 – Group 2 • 12:00-1:15 – Group 3 9:30-10:30 – Sarup Mathur: PLC 10:30-12:30 – Technology Module 2:00-5:00 – Diversity and Equity module provided by experts affiliated with the Equity Alliance Center. Friday, Oct. 25 9:30-12:30 – Core Learning Class 1:00-4:00 – Professional Learning Communities Précis Work Time

• In addition, they have participated in reforms that include syllabus redesign to include TAP standards, and they supervise teachers in the field. Most of the students they supervise are the teachers of record in K-12 classrooms who are teaching on intern certificates.

3:30-6:00 – VOLUNTARY – Conference at Mission Palms (Friday afternoon and Saturday) Teachers of Children with Behavioral Disorders

1:30-4:30 – Technology Assistance

Skills and observation of classrooms; required modules in Ethics, Democracy, trip to DC.

Thursday, Oct. 17 9:30-10:30 – Sarup Mathur: PLC 10:30-1:00 – Technology Module 1:30-4:30 – Technology Assistance

BLOCK TWO:

Oct. 28 – Nov. 1 – MCREL Training Monday through Friday | 8:30 am – 4:30 pm Theme: Classroom Instruction that Works

Navarati Celebrations Sugam Sangeet Program (Indo-American Community Center)

6

Sources: Daily calendar on Google; handouts to group each Friday

58

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

59


Appendix C: Cohort 1 Syllabus – Classroom Instruction that Works

Monday, Nov. 4

Thursday, Nov. 21

Friday, Dec. 6

9:30-11:00 – Ethics Module

9:30-10:30 – Sarup Mathur – Implementation

9:30-12:30 – Leadership Module with Kay Coleman

11:00-12:00 – Core Learning Class

10:30-12:00 – Technology Module

1:00-3:00 – School principals’ panel on teacher professional development

• Weekly Theme: Reflective Teaching and Experiential Learning; Teacher Motivation

1:45-3:15 – Library Presentation on Open Access Journals – Alexandria Humphries, Hayden Library

3:00-5:00 – Technology Assistance

1:00-2:00 – Professional Learning Communities Work Time

3:30-5:00 – Technology Assistance

2:00-5:00 – Education for Democracy with Dr. Gustavo Fischman

9:30-12:30 – Core Learning Class

Instructor: Dr. B.J. Stone

Friday, Nov. 22

• Weekly Theme: Reform Project Data Analysis and Evaluation Plan

Tuesday, Nov. 5 School site visits

9:30-12:00 – Core Learning Class

1:00-3:30 – Early Literacy with Carol Connor

Wednesday, Nov. 6

1:00-4:30 – Leadership with Kay Coleman

Meeting Times: October 28, 2013 – November 1, 2013 8:30 am – 4:30 pm

9:30-11:00 – Ethics Module

BLOCK THREE:

9:00-1:00 – School site visits

Course Overview

11:00-12:00 – Core learning class

Finalizing reform plan for submission to MHRD and preparing for the start of the reform at home

2:00-3:30 – Ethics: Guest Speaker Dr. David Berliner – Poverty and Education

DELIVERABLES: Final project for submission to MHRD; Dress rehearsal of orientation that will kick off your reform at home (to be videotaped)

9:30-12:30 – Early Literacy Module with Carol Connor

Although there are many outcomes educators often want to influence in schools, achievement is certainly among the most critical. Too often, however, teachers and administrators focus on ensuring that all students reach standard benchmarks of performance, and much less attention is given to more critical aspects of progress. The fundamental obligation of education is to at least ensure that all students are making appropriate gains relative to the time they spend in classrooms. Of course, guaranteeing both – progress and proficiency – is ideal, but this course of professional development is concerned with helping those with a personal stake in education better understand the factors that lead to maximum gains.

2:00-5:00 – Education for Democracy with Dr. Gustavo Fischman Thursday – Travel to Washington D.C., Return Monday Nov. 11, 2013 Ongoing This Week: • Writing coaching (as scheduled by Kristine Wilcox) • Observations of MLFTC faculty teaching classes – for some people(as scheduled by Kevin)

Ongoing This Week: • Writing coaching (as scheduled by Kristine Wilcox) Monday, Nov. 25

Monday, Nov. 11 – Veterans Day Holiday, return from Washington DC

9:30-12:00 – DELIVERABLE Core Learning Class

Tuesday and Wednesday, Nov. 12 & 13

• Weekly Theme: Adult Learning and Constructivist Practices for Sustainable Change

8:30-4:30 – TAP training by the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching

Monday, Dec. 9

Tuesday, Dec. 10

Wednesday, Dec. 11 1:45-4:30 – Sustainability Module with Dr. Lee Hartwell, Annie Warren, Dr. Mary Jane Parmentier Thursday, Dec. 12 9:30-10:30 – Sarup Mathur, Implementation 10:30-12:30 – Technology Module 1:15-1:45 – Recruiting for American Universities by Martha Cochierella

1:30-4:30 – DELIVERABLE Early Literacy Module with Carol Connor

1:45-4:00 – Early Literacy with Carol Connor

Tuesday, Nov. 26

Friday, Dec. 13

Thursday, Nov. 14

9:30-10:30 – Sarup Mathur – Implementation

9:30-10:30 – Sarup Mathur – Implementation

10:30-12:30 – Technology Module

FINAL REFORM PROPOSAL DUE (Context, Topic, Rationale, Action Plan, Evaluation Design)

10:30-12:30 – Technology Module

1:00-4:30 – Leadership Module with Kay Coleman

2:00-5:00 – Diversity and Equity module provided by experts affiliated with the Equity Alliance Center.

Wednesday, Nov. 27

• Focus: Observations, Rubrics and Coaching to Document and Improve Teacher Behaviors

9:30-12:30 – Core Learning Class

Friday, Nov. 15

Thursday, Nov. 28 – Thanksgiving

9:30-11:00 – Ethics Module

Friday, Nov. 29 – Holiday – Kannada Sangha Silver Jubilee Celebration

11:00-12:00 – Core Learning Class.

Ongoing This Week:

• Daily Theme: Ethical and Responsible Teaching and Teacher Education. Compare and Contrast: The Good Teacher, MHRD Reform Document, McREL Training, TAP Training.

• Writing coaching (as scheduled by Kristine Wilcox)

1:30-4:30 – Leadership for Change – Kay Coleman

9:30-12:30 – Core Learning Class

Ongoing This Week:

• Weekly Theme: Planning the Reform Proposal Initial Meeting and Dress Rehearsal

• Writing coaching (as scheduled by Kristine Wilcox) • Observations of MLFTC faculty teaching classes – for some people(as scheduled by Kevin) Monday, Nov. 18 9:30-10:30 – Sarup Mathur – Implementation 10:30-12:00 – Technology Module 2:00-5:00 – Education for Democracy with Dr. Gustavo Fischman Tuesday, Nov. 19 8:00am – Site visits to Phoenix Union HS 12:30-2:00 – Faculty observations as scheduled by Kevin 2:00-5:00 – Education for Democracy with Dr. Gustavo Fischman Wednesday, Nov. 20 9:30-12:00 – Core Learning Class • Weekly Theme: Leadership of Sustainable Change 1:30-5:00 – Technology Assistance

Monday, Dec. 2

9:30-12:00 – Core Learning Class: Evaluation of Local Reforms 1:00-5:00 – Technology Assistance

Classroom Instruction that Works In-STEP, Fall 2013

The key feature of this course of professional development is that it is based on a conceptual model that integrates the various “bits” of teaching and learning. This will allow In-STEP Fellows to explore how and why various strategies work more effectively than others. The answer, of course, is not identifying one method and adopting that new technique; rather, it is more about developing a wider worldview, or model, of how different influences in the classroom must work together to help all students realize their learning gains.

Monday, Dec. 16

Course Schedule

9:30-12:00 – Videotaped presentations (two per group)

I. Creating the Environment for Learning

2:00-3:00 – Dr. Sasha Barab, Center for Games and Impact

a. Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback

3:00-5:00 – Technology Assistance

b. Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition

Tuesday, Dec. 17

c. Cooperative Learning

8:00-1:00 – Smart Board Training 12:30-2:00 – Conversations about Social Studies Methods with Liz Hinde and Nancy Haas

II. Helping Students Develop Understanding a. Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers

2:00-5:00 – Videotaped presentations (two per group)

b. Nonlinguistic Representations

1:00-2:00 – Cognitive Modeling in Teacher Professional Development with Steven Graham

Wednesday, Dec. 18

c. Summarizing and Note Taking

2:30-5:00 – Technology Assistance

12:15-1:15 – Conversations about Science and Math methods with Peter Rillero and Ron Zambo

Tuesday, Dec. 3

9:30-12:00 – Videotaped presentations (two per group)

d. Assigning Homework and Providing Practice III. Helping Students Apply and Extend Knowledge

1:45-4:30 – Sustainability Module (Dr. Lee Hartwell, et. al.)

a. Identifying Similarities and Differences

10:30-12:30 – Technology Module

Thursday, Dec. 19

b. Generating and Testing Hypotheses

1:00-4:30 – Technology Assistance

9:30-10:30 – Sarup Mathur – Implementation

IV. Putting the Instructional Strategies to Use

9:30-10:30 – Sarup Mathur – Implementation

Wednesday, Dec. 4 9:30-12:30 – Core Learning Class 1:00-1:45 – Research-Based Professional Development with Karen Harris 1:45-4:30 – Sustainability (with Dr. Lee Hartwell) Thursday, Dec. 5 9:30-10:30 – Sarup Mathur – Implementation 10:30-12:30 – Technology Module 12:30-1:30 – Preschool site visit

10:30-12:30 – Technology Module, Dr. Wetzel and Dr. Archambault 1:00-4:00 – Training and Testing Google Hangout for communication in Spring 2014

a. Instructional Planning Using the Nine Categories of Strategies

Friday, Dec. 20 • Professional Photographs • Closing Bank Accounts • Certificate Presentation and Celebration Dinner Monday, December 23 – Departure

1:30-5:00 – Technology Assistance

60

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

61


Appendix D: Cohort 1 Syllabus – Core Course Core Course In-STEP, Fall 2013 Instructors: Dr. Christopher Clark and Dr. Suzanne Painter Introduction: a Letter to the In-STEP Fellows October 7, 2013 Dear Visiting Fellows, Welcome to the academic portion of the India Support for Teacher Education Program (In-STEP) at Arizona State University. We recognize that, since you are distinguished Visiting Fellows and experienced teacher educators, you already know a great deal about effective teaching, school learning, teacher preparation, educational leadership and administration. Our work together during the next three months will focus on: 1. making your professional knowledge more visible and available (in English) to you and to your colleagues in teacher education; 2. supplementing your professional knowledge with information, scholarship and direct experiences of exemplary practices in American teacher education; 3. designing and refining small-scale, improvement-oriented practical Reform Projects that you will implement and evaluate when you return to India; 4. extending your network of professional colleagues both in India and internationally. During our time together in the academic program you will be organized into groups of five to seven Visiting Fellows. These learning and academic support groups are called Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). They have been found to be powerful activity structures for cultivating grounded and situated learning that is both memorable and applicable to real world settings and to complex problem-solving in education. Social Constructivism is the theoretical foundation for Professional Learning Communities. Fellows will develop reform proposals to be implemented and evaluated in the Spring semester. We have planned the work of preparing the reform proposals into three parts, each of approximately one-month duration. Part I. Building on Strengths. Organized in PLCs, you will inventory strengths, challenges and opportunities for improvement of teacher preparation programs at your home institutions, guided by close reading of the 2009 India National Plan for Reform of Teacher Education. Your inventory and analysis of current strengths and opportunities will be supplemented with technology training, readings, and observations of ASU teacher education programs in action, school visits, and presentations by distinguished ASU professors. Part I will culminate in the writing, editing, and public presentation of a set of 1-2 page précis describing improvement oriented, small-scale, practical Reform Projects that each PLC proposes to implement in their home institutions. Part II. Reform Proposal Development. You will draw from USA and international literature of research on effective teacher education. Targeted literature reviews and annotated bibliographies will be created for the purpose of strengthening and elaborating full draft proposals for improvement-oriented, small-scale, practical Reform Projects. Knowledge gained from the literature will be supplemented by visits to ASU teacher education courses, American schools, presentations by distinguished ASU professors, and continuing training in the use of technology. In this part of

the project you will also consider how change comes about in educational organizations and create action steps to plan successful implementation of your selected reform. Finally, you will plan an evaluation of your reform project to be conducted next spring. Part II will culminate in writing, editing and public presentation of draft detailed proposals for improvement oriented, small-scale, practical Reform Projects. Part III. Reform Proposal Revision and Presentation. Organized in PLCs, you will make revisions, conduct pilot tests, and polish draft Reform Proposals, incorporating constructive feedback received from peers, Ministry experts, ASU professors, and from reflecting on their professional experiences and observations while at ASU. You will also practice using distance technology to seek and to receive support-at-a-distance, to be provided during the implementation of Reform Proposals when you have returned to your home institutions in India. PLCs will prepare and rehearse formal presentations of their Reform Proposals, illustrated by brief, vivid PowerPoint or similar presentation software slide decks. Part III will culminate in a Reform Proposal Day event, in which PLCs will make formal public presentations of their Reform Proposals to an audience of invited ASU leaders and officials, ASU professors, and other educators. As you see, this is a full agenda. We have every confidence that you will create a set of exciting and transformative Reform Proposals that, when implemented, will trigger a renaissance in teacher preparation in India. We are grateful to be playing a supporting role in this vital work. Again, welcome to Arizona State University.

Week Week 1 Oct 7-11

Week 2 Oct 14-18

First site visits. Discussion of data collection tool for site visits focused on student-teacher relationships, gender equity, student engagement, and formative assessments.

Note – participants express frustration with requirement to have a group topic as their institutions and roles are different. We put them in discipline-aligned groups for discussions and topic support. None of our strategies is meeting the expressed need, so we determined that they would design individual reform plans. Week 3 Oct 21-25

Themes: How People Learn – Experts and Novices; Experiential Learning Reform précis – Topic Selection, Context and Literature to support proposal. Identify experiential learning cycle stages – (embodied in proposal drafting); compare to personal experiences; discomfort as related to learning. Prepare for observations of math methods classes with coherent and aligned use of teaching-learning materials in hands of learners. Inquiry-based lessons with high levels of student engagement. Reform précis – Importance of training and going slowly to assure fidelity of action to plan – Cannot measure impact unless you are sure innovation has been implemented. Importance of coherence between contextual need and capacity to change, implementer’s authority to make change, and expected result. Work of this week is to activate reflection on what change can be reasonably accomplished to set the stage for the next successful change. REFORM PRECIS DUE (to be sent to MHRD)

Week 4 Oct 28-Nov 1

No core class meetings – all participants in focused 35-40-hour training on Classroom Instruction That Works provided by MidContinent Regional Laboratory (MCREL).

Week 5 Nov. 4-8

Theme: Remembering, Reinterpreting and Reorganizing what is known – Developing Context-Sensitive Knowledge (Concentrated time due to Ethics module, site visits, and trip to Washington, DC) Cognitive information processing – role of attention, memory, recall. Executive control (meta-cognition) and relationship to teaching and learning. Remembering last week’s training, relationship of these strategies to The Good Teacher constructs; continued think-aloud by instructors to identify instructional decisions and reasons for them.

Week 6 Nov 11-13

Theme: Remembering, Reinterpreting and Reorganizing what is known – Developing Context-Sensitive Knowledge Monday – return from DC Tuesday and Wednesday – All Day TAP training (use of rubrics for teacher observation and performance evaluation) Friday – Core Course – connecting the learning in Ethics Module, DC trip, and TAP training – identifying themes and relating to constructivist teaching and learning theories. Extension of constructs and instruments to Indian contexts.

Week 7 Nov. 18-22

Theme: Adult Learning, Reform Project Action Plan & Data Collection and Evaluation Plan

Week 8 Nov 25-29

Theme: Adult Learning, Reform Project Action Plan & Data collection and Evaluation Plan

Gawnade, A. (2008). Better: A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance. MacMillan. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A. & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How People Learn. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press. (selections).

Theme: Reflective Teaching and Experiential Learning; Constructivism explicated and enacted

Development of group topic through structured discussions. Distribution of model reform précis for guidance. Discussion of key parts. Location of initial reform in a larger picture (3 box timeline graphic).

Readings

National Council for Teacher Education (2009). National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education: Towards Preparing Professional and Humane Teacher. New Delhi: Author.

Introductions and partner interviews. Dear Colleagues letter (constructivism enacted). Introduction to The Good Teacher and Framework – comparison of key ideas, contrasts, and evaluation of strengths in DIETs and other organizations. Collaborative Learning experienced through group presentation of results and reflection on activities. Importance of learner engagement. Epistemological assumptions – what is the nature of knowledge and where does it reside? Relationship of beliefs about knowledge to teaching practices. Reflection on class activities as illustrative of constructivist practices. Possible extensions to teacher development in India.

Continue to develop description of local contexts for the reform proposals.

Core Course and Reform Project Development (combined meetings)

Clark, C. M. (1993). The Good Teacher, English Teachers’ Journal (Israel), No. 46, pp. 29-34.

Theme: Good Teaching as the Aim of Teacher Education; Alignment of National Policy, Research and the Practice of Good Teaching

Expectations for reform proposal topic paper (the précis) due Oct. 25.

Christopher Clark, PhD, Professor Suzanne Painter, PhD, Associate Professor As indicated in the letter to the Fellows, the core course and the reform project development activities were combined into one “course” that generally met three times a week from 9:30 to noon. After an initial assessment, we determined that the dominant learning need for the Fellows was not to receive more academic theory and instruction about learning, but to remember their inert knowledge, participate in experiences related to constructivism, incorporate that experience and develop expertise to be conditionally applied upon their return home. Discrete and unconnected experiences of K-12 classrooms, methods classes, technology and other modules were unlikely to promote change in the learners or their institutions. The core course became the vehicle for making those connections, grounded in learning theory, but not trapped by it. What follows is a list of assigned readings, the week-by-week topics and many of the interactive learning activities that were designed with the project goals of supporting on-ground reform in India. We drew from the significant literature on teacher development and educational reform to inform our planning and our responses to students.

Themes and Topics (planned and emergent)

Compare Action Planning templates; Extract useful sections and work with critical friends to plan. Connect learning theory to plans for those who will implement the reform – how do they learn? What practices of constructivism are relevant to your action plan? What technology may be useful – what is not useful because it is not available? Principles of effective professional development from research – Learning theory for adult learners. Revisit action plans and compare to principles of adult learning. Incorporation of feedback from MHRD experts. Reform Plan revisions and elaborations. Meetings with Critical friends, cycles of review and revision.

Week 9 Dec 2-6

Theme: Evaluating reforms Three-stage evaluation model for reform. Develop reform evaluation plans. Emphasis on implementation evaluation and modification in progress – not on student outcomes (premature). Writing workshops.

62

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

63


Week Week 10 Dec 9-13

Themes and Topics (planned and emergent) Theme: Adult Learning and Constructivist Practices for Sustainable Change Reflective practices in planning instruction and staff development; Importance of successful launch of reform – reporting what you have learned in your Arizona residency and seeking cooperation/buy-in for launching the reform. Modeling reflection– relationship to how we construct meaning. Fundamental idea – each individual makes sense of events differently – including the teachers you lead and the students they teach. Presentations of reform initiation sessions – incorporation of IT and constructivist practices. Importance of getting something started that is small and likely to succeed. Engaging teachers in authentic reform.

Appendix E: Cohort 1 Syllabus – Education & Democracy Education and Democracy In-STEP, Fall 2013 Instructor: Dr. Gustavo E. Fischman

Course Description The main goal of this course is to analyze educational dynamics in contemporary societies in relationship to the multiple dynamics associated with the notions of “democracy” and “citizenship”. The focus of this seminar will be on social, political, and economic factors as they influences issues of access and equity in educational systems. The In-STEP Fellows are expected to explore the changing structures of education and schooling in the 20th and 21st centuries; the educational dynamics associated to emergence of “knowledge-based economies”; and the changing nature of the notions of the “public” and “private” in contemporary democratic societies.

Recommended Readings Brown, P., Halsey, A. H., Lauder, H., and A. S. Wells (1997) ”Introduction: The Social Transformation of Education and Society”, in H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. Stuart Wells (editors), Education: Culture, Economy, and Society Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press. 1-45. Brown, P. & H., Lauder, H., (2003) Globalisation and the Knowledge Economy: Some Observations on Recent Trends in Employment, Education and the Labour Market, Working Paper 43, School of Social Sciences, University of Cardiff. Reimers, F. (s/d) “Education and Social Progress” http://gseacademic.harvard.edu/~reimers/articles.html Glass, G. (2008) “What is the Fate of Public Education in America?” Fertilizers, Pills & Magnetic Strips: The Fate of Public Education in America, Charlotte, NC. Information Age Publishing. Reimers, F. (2006). The public purposes of schools in an age of globalization Prospects, vol. XXXVI, no. 3, September 2006 1-24 Stromquist, Nelly & Monkman, Karen (2000). Defining globalization and assessing its implications on knowledge and education. In N. Stromquist & K. Monkman (Eds.), Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Expectations and Grading In order to do well in this class you must: Attend all classes (1) Actively participate in class discussion (2) Complete all in-class assignments (3) Follow the standards for academic integrity outlined in the Student Academic Integrity Policy (http://www.asu.edu/studentlife/judicial/integrity.html)

64

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

Appendix F: Cohort 1 Syllabus – Gender Equity & Inclusion Gender Equity and Inclusion In-STEP, Fall 2013 The Gender Equity and Inclusion module included readings, discussions and hands-on practice that were designed to equip teacher educators to become site advocates for gender equity and inclusion in their home institutions. • Unit 1 – focused on defining inclusive schools and understanding two frameworks – systemic change framework and the technical, contextual and critical framework as lenses to build inclusive and equitable schools. • Unit 2 – focused on understanding and defining power, privilege, equity, and how personal identity is connected to these concepts. We also worked on developing resources for teacher advocates to use to build a plan for gender equity and inclusion in participants’ local schools. • Unit 3 – focused on preparing teachers on how to address curriculum bias as teacher advocates, how to recognize and disrupt curriculum and interactional bias, and how to define and identify bullying and harassment by using the two primary theoretical frameworks. We used group activities and pedagogical reflections throughout the three sessions to probe participants’ understandings of the connection between concepts introduced in class and practice in the classroom. Reflection questions included the following: 1. In what ways might this activity further your own students’ understanding of inclusive schools? 2. In what ways might the activity need to be modified to be more culturally responsive to your own context? 3. What challenges might arise for you as the facilitator of an activity such as this? For the final assignment participants were separated into nine groups. Each group was asked to prepare a one-page resource document using concepts from class and readings. The one-page resource document was intended to focus on three different areas: (1) teaching and pedagogical development (e.g. strategies/activities to be used for students to engage in learning), (2) supervising and evaluation/ assessment (e.g. rubric, evaluation instruments), and (3) curriculum development (e.g. syllabus and lesson plan(s)). Each of the nine groups provided a five-minute presentation to the class on the one-page resource document produced. Readings and resources were provided via Dropbox and included articles, briefs, websites and videos based on teacher preparation for inclusive schools, gender equity, bullying and harassment, curriculum bias, and scheduled castes and tribes.

Resources by Topic

Practitioner Briefs and Reports

Teacher Preparation for Inclusive Schools

1. WORLD ATLAS of Gender Equality in Education UNESCO – Institute for Statistics (UIS) – March 2012 (See PDF). [Uses maps to provide a global perspective on gender equity issues]

Article(s) 1. Oyler, C. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive and critical (special) education. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 34(3), 201-218. [This article can be used to think about how to build critical and contextual considerations into a teacher preparation program. This article provides an overview of a teacher preparation program for equity-based inclusive educators] 2. Lin, M., Lake, V. E., & Rice, D. (2008). Teaching anti-bias curriculum in teacher education programs: What and how. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 187-200. [This article could be used with pre-service teachers. It shows how a teacher preparation program prepared teacher candidates to integrate anti-bias or diversity curriculum with the regular curriculum] Practitioner Briefs and Reports 1. Equity Alliance’s Learning Carousel [The Equity Alliance has a Learning Carousel, which houses the best research-based practitioner briefs and facilitator manuals on inclusive education. You can do a search or click on a section of the framework for resources. The resources we provided in your bags are available on the Learning Carousel] (http://ea.niusileadscape.org/lc) Website 1. The Equity Alliance [The Equity Alliance is the organization that provided you with the three day Gender Equity and Inclusive Education Learning Module. We are devoted to creating and sustaining inclusive schools. You will find many helpful resources on our website including the Learning Carousel, our Advancing the Conversation video commentaries, and our Equity Blogs] (http://equityallianceatasu.org/) 2. Teaching Tolerance – Teachers Promoting Equity (http://www.tolerance.org/toolkit/front-lines) [This is a useful tool for preparing teachers to be site advocates. It provides suggestions for educators working to promote equity] Video

2. King-Thorius, K. (2010). Gender Equity Matters! Equity Matters Series, The Equity Alliance. Retrieved From: http://ea.niusileadscape.org/docs/ FINAL_PRODUCTS/LearningCarousel/Gender_Equity_Matters.pdf [This practitioner brief is an excellent tool for pre-service teachers. It provides an over-view of the issues and strategies for creating more equity] Websites 1. Documentaries about Gender in India http://realtalkies.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/documentariesabout-gender-inindia/) [These short documentaries provide a macroperspective of gender equity issues in various forms across India] 2. UNESCO Gender Equity Page (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/themes/gender-equality/) [This website provides useful publications such as the Gender Equality Action Plan] 3. EdChange by Paul Gorski (http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/genderbias.html) [Professor Gorski’s website offers not only this blog on gender equity, but many other resources to create more equitable education practices] 4. Teaching Tolerance-Sexism: From Identification to Activism (http://www.tolerance.org/lesson/sexism-identification-activism) [A lesson plan for grades 6-12. Students will develop strategies to challenge sexism in their personal lives, in the school or in the community] Videos 1. Recommended Documentary Miss Representation http://www.missrepresentation.org/the-film/ [Although the US is often touted as a model for gender equity, this film exposes how mainstream media contribute to the under-representation of women in positions of power and influence in America. The film challenges the media’s limited and often disparaging portrayals of women and girls, which make it difficult for women to achieve leadership positions and for the average woman to feel powerful herself]

1. UNESCO (not available with Chrome) [This tool can be used to provide a global overview of educational access for people with disabilities. It is a film that uses footage from schools in Kenya, Finland and Turkey, it addresses the situation of children with disabilities worldwide and the importance of getting them into school. It also contains interviews and commentary from stakeholders and experts and some 50 educational resources such as toolkits and policy guidelines] (http://www.unesco.org/archives/multimedia/?s=films_details&id_ page=33&id_film=213)

Bullying and Harassment

Gender Equity

1. Gonzales, J. & Hamilton, K. (2011). Addressing bullying and harassment. Equity Matters Series, The Equity Alliance. Retrieved From: http://ea.niusileadscape.org/docs/FINAL_PRODUCTS/ LearningCarousel/Addressing_Bullying&Harassment.pdf [This practitioner brief is an excellent tool for opening up conversations about bullying; what is it? Why does it matter? What can we do about it?]

Article(s) 1. Dutt, Shushmita (2010). Girls’ Education as Freedom? Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 17(1), 25-48. [This article describes an alternative program in India that builds critical and contextual considerations into their curriculum]

Article(s) 1. Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school bullying? linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 38-47. [In this article the authors review research on individual, peer, and school contributions that may be critical factors for enhancing efforts to address bullying among students] Practitioner Briefs and Reports

2. Prevention of Bullying in Schools, Colleges, and Universities: Research Report and Recommendations (2013). The American Educational Research Association (AERA). Retrieved From: http://www.aera.net/ Portals/38/docs/News%20Release/Prevention%20of%20Bullying%20 in%20Schools,%20Colleges%20and%20Universities.pdf [This 2013 report through AERA was created by lead researchers on the topic of bullying. One chapter specifically focuses on gender related bullying]

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

65


Websites

Scheduled Castes and Tribes

1. National Bullying Prevention Center: The end of bullying begins with you (http://www.pacer.org/bullying/) [Website offers bullying prevention resources that are designed to benefit all students, including students with disabilities. Includes focused resources for parents, kids, and youth]

Practitioner Briefs and Reports

2. Espelage Against Bullying (http://espelageagainstbullying.com/index. html) [Professor Espelage leads her undergraduates and graduate students to create safer schools. Website includes a ‘Resource’ tab with additional web-based resources on bullying] 3. Teaching Tolerance Bullying Links (http://www.tolerance.org/exchange/band-aids-bullying) [A sample lesson plan for students grade 6-8] (http://www.tolerance.org/lesson/bullying-quiz) [A lesson plan for grades 6-12 to raise awareness about the prevalence of bullying and its detrimental effects for all involved] Videos 1. Advancing the Conversation Series School Bullying and Safety by Professor Dorothy Espelage Video: https://vimeo.com/63341955 [Professor Espelage gives an overview of bullying and how schools can become safer] Curriculum Bias and Learning Materials Article(s) 1. Frawley, T. (2005). Gender bias in the classroom: Current controversies and implications for teachers. Childhood Education, 81(4), 221-227. [Article that discusses the destructive nature gender stereotypes create in learning] 2. Gender Bias in School Textbooks, Amruthraj R.M (n.d.) [This article describes a study on curriculum biases in India] Practitioner Briefs and Reports 1. Mississippi Tool [This is a tool the Equity Alliance created to examine curriculum and instructional biases in Mississippi] 2. Using the Mississippi Tool PowerPoint [This is a manual for using the tool] Websites 1. Anti-defamation League (http://www.adl.org/education-outreach/curriculum-resources/c/ additional-antibias-resources.html#.Ulh9k9KsjTo) (http://www.adl.org/education-outreach/curriculum-resources/c/ creating-an-antibias-learning-environment.html#.Ulh_ENKsh8E) [A set of resources provide tips, tools and strategies for K-12 educators, administrators, students and family members to promote diversity and anti-bias behavior in learning environments and society] 2. Institute for Humane Education (http://humaneeducation.org/blog/tag/anti-bias/) [Anti-bias resources such as lesson plans, books, and web-based tools] Videos 1. Ted talk with Colin Stokes (http://www.ted.com/talks/colin_stokes_how_movies_teach_manhood. htm) [Ted talk on what the media not only teaches girls about girls, but also what it teaches boys about girls. This could be a critical tool for helping pre-service see gender bias in things we see every day]

66

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

1. Sedwal, M. & Kamat, S. (2008). Education and Social Equity with a Special Focus on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Elementary Education. Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity. Create Pathways to Access, Research Monograph No. 19. National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA). [The paper focuses on issues related to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It assesses progress towards universal elementary education in India, and also highlights the persistence of social inequity that characterizes the Indian elementary education scene and discusses various strategies pursued for bridging the gaps] 2. Derman-Sparks, L. & Edwards, J. (2010). Anti-Bias Education for young children and ourselves. National Association for the Education of Young Children. [A guide for anti-bias education. Anti-bias work provides teachers a way to examine and transform their understanding of children’s lives and also do self-reflective work to more deeply understand their own lives] Websites 1. Teaching Tolerance-My Multicultural Self (http://www.tolerance.org/lesson/my-multicultural-self) [Lesson plan for grades 3-12. Before endeavoring to develop cultural knowledge and awareness about others, students must first uncover and examine personal social and cultural identities. Guided self-reflection allows them to better understand how social group memberships inform who they are] 2. Teaching Tolerance-Stereotype Blasters (http://www.tolerance.org/exchange/stereotype-blasters) [A lesson plan for students in grades 9-12. Students debunk cultural stereotypes through their own experiences] Videos 3. India Untouched: Research Documentary! (Screened in Satyamev Jayate 8th July 2012) (http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=lgDGmYdhZvU) [A documentary that explores the issue of untouchability n India] Additional Resources 1. How People Learn: Introduction to Learning Theories developed by Linda-Darling Hammon, Kim Austin, Suzanne Orcutt, and Jim Rosso. The Learning Classroom: Theory into Practice A Telecourse for Teacher Education and Professional Development. http://www.stanford.edu/class/ed269/hplintrochapter.pdf 2. Singal, N. (2006). Inclusive Education in India: International concept, national interpretation. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 53(3), 351-369. 3. Singal, N. (2007). Working towards inclusion: Reflections from the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1516-1529. 4. Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. Documentary: http://www.halftheskymovement.org/ Book: (http://www.amazon.com/Half-Sky-Oppression-OpportunityWorldwide/dp/0307387097/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=138 1532433&sr=1-1&keywords=half+the+sky+turning+oppression+into+o pportunity+for+women+worldwide)

Appendix G: Cohort 1 Syllabus – Ethics

Wednesday Nov 6 • Share Hippocratic Oaths in groups. Are they the same or different?

Ethics In-STEP, Fall 2013 Instructor: Dr. Chris Clark Meeting Dates Monday, November 4 Wednesday, November 6 Friday, November 15 Fundamental questions: What are the fundamental ethical responsibilities of teacher educators? What do we need to model and live that we hope will influence teacher trainees? Ultimate goal: Develop passion and commitment among teachers that will lead them to a moral and ethical stance that puts the welfare and learning of their students as their core mission. Assumptions and strategies: a. Model our desire to have all our students (and Fellows) learn – the commitment to student success. b. Demonstrate respect for individuals and the strengths that they bring, appreciating those strengths and ideas. c. Take the long view of a teacher’s career – we are preparing them not to be inexperienced experts but to be novices, well started; preparing them for a good start and an orientation toward continuous learning and improvement both personally and as part of a group. d. Cultivating a constructive classroom climate: 1) being there every day on time; 2) commitment to learners; 3) good use of class time; 4) respectful feedback; 5) encouragement. e. Discussion and illustration of the above strategies to make them explicit. Monday, November 4 • Read original Hippocratic Oath, American Hippocratic Oath, Indian Hippocratic Oath at http://www.ima-india.org/page.php?page_id=21, Revised Indian Hippocratic Oath http://www.nmji.in/archives/ Volume-23/Issue-6/Speaking-For• Ourselves.pdf • Write a Hippocratic Oath for Indian teacher Educators modeled on the Hippocratic Oath for Physicians (modern version and Indian version). Fellows think about replicating these or other strategies in their own institutions to model and develop ethical stances. Using a template, write a page about their core beliefs and commitments and how they demonstrate those in their daily work. a. Stance toward students b. Stance toward colleagues

• Discuss how did the Hippocratic Oath become universal and how can a Hippocratic Oath for teacher educators become universal? • Examine: Which of these resonates with your sense of being a teacher educator in India? Is there another source of inspiration? “Good teaching cannot be reduced to technique; good teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher.” Parker J. Palmer, The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life “If we want to grow as teachers – we must do something alien to academic culture: we must talk to each other about our inner lives – risky stuff in a profession that fears the personal and seeks safety in the technical, the distant, the abstract.” Parker J. Palmer, The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life “Relational trust is built on movements of the human heart such as empathy, commitment, compassion, patience, and the capacity to forgive.” Parker J. Palmer, The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life “As I teach, I project the condition of my soul onto my students, my subject, and our way of being together.” Parker J. Palmer, The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life Assignment • Explore the website http://www.couragerenewal.org/parker • Find another website either local or worldwide that would be meaningful to your colleagues in India. • Make a visual record of the monuments in Washington, DC that express the nation’s commitment to certain bedrock ethical principles. What do you understand about the best American ideals as represented in Washington? • Read ‘Modeling Ethical Conduct in the Classroom’ (http://www. edutopia.org/blog/ethical-conduct-classroom-margaret-regan) Friday Nov 15 • Share a few websites that were inspiring. • Present DC photos • Discuss: How does creating ethical environments link to creating classroom climates that you learned about from MCREL training?

Assignment

• Analyze how PLCs can be used in India to continue to support our own courage to try new ways of teaching, sustaining commitment, and supporting one another.

• Bring in a quotation or short story that has inspired you and helped you to retain your commitment to education.

• Consider: How do you as a leader demonstrate and support commitments to ethical actions?

c. Stance toward families and community

• Continue to refine your Hippocratic Oath for Teacher and Teacher Educators

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

67


Appendix H: Cohort 1 Syllabus – Leadership

Goal

Reform Leadership and Dealing with Change

InSTEP Fellows read and apply the research on implementing change as they develop and expand their projects for the InSTEP reform proposals.

In-STEP, Fall 2013

2. Video: I Love Lucy-Candy Factory – 10 table groups

Books

Instructor: Kay Coleman, Director of iLeadAZ

Hall, G. E., Hord, S. M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Meeting Dates November 15, 1:00-4:30 November 22, 1:00-4:30 November 26, 1:00-4:30 December 6, 9:30-12:30

Gawande, A. (2007). Better. New York, NY: Picador. Fullan, M. (2009). The challenge of change: Start school improvement now (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-­Bass.

Panel Discussion December 6, 1:00-2:30

Instructor: Kay Coleman, Director of iLeadAZ

Course Outline Date

Concept

Materials

Activities

11/15

Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles and Lessons Learned

1. Pre-reading and Discussion Brief-Hall and Hord, Chapter 2. Case Study 3. Intro to IC Map with reading assignment

1. Presentation 2. Use a discussion protocol and determine team make up 3. Analysis of Case Study

1. Pre-reading and Discussion Brief Chap 3 2. Three participants describe innovation (materials previewed) 3. Small group interview questions 4. Indiana Jones: IC Map demo

1. Presentation 2. Teams work through an IC MAP 3. Teams develop IC Map for project

1. Pre-reading and Discussion Brief Chap 4 & 5 2. Materials for identifying Stages of Concern 3. Possible Interventions 4. Level of Use: Samples to discuss

1. Presentation 2. Practice SoC interviews 3. Practice LoU observations

1. Pre-read and Discussion Brief Chapters 6, 7, 8 2. Types of change leaders 3. Consultancy protocol 4. Introduction of panel of change facilitators

1. Presentation of leaders, adopter styles, analysis 2. Personal reflection of various change leaders 3. Leadership panel for discussion and small group work

11/22

11/26

12/6

Clarifying the change using Innovation Configuration Maps in Planning

Understanding Stages of Concern and Exploring Levels of Use of Innovations

Describing Leaders and the Differences they Make (Change Facilitator Style) and Considering Interventions

Processing protocols

Example of November 15, 2013 Lesson Plan

That’s Me

Session 1 of In-STEP-Leadership Module

Jigsaw

Objective: In-STEP Fellows understand the 10 principles of change as defined by Hord and Hall and 6 strategies for successful implementation. They will apply those principles to their own work.

Final Word Graffiti Review Line Up Say Something Walk About Review Numbered Heads

Pre-reading: Hall and Hord Chapter 1, Study Guide with explanation of each principle of change, application to workplace, and questions about the concepts. 1. Introductions…That’s me! WG

Panel Presenters for Final Day

a. I am a parent of one child, two children, three children, more than three children

Gary Zehrbach (Phoenix Elementary Director of Principals)

b. I am a teacher of young people, teachers, principals

Elizabeth Mulhavey (Mesa Schools Recognized Principal)

c. I have been teaching less than five years, more than five years, more than 10 years, more than 20 years, more than 25 years

Suzi Deprez (Mesa Schools Assistant Superintendent) Marcy Figueroa-Stewart (Roosevelt Schools Director of School Improvement) Dora Barrio (Rodel Foundation Director)

68

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

d. I am a principal, I am a lecturer, I am a state project officer, I am a director e. I live in the northeast seven sisters area of India, UP, Bihar, MP, Odisha

a. Overall question to open to full group: i. What observations would you make about the clip? b. Questions to discuss with small table group: i. What made failure likely in this video clip of the candy factory? How did Lucy and Ethel deal with change? What might Lucy or Ethel have done to make the situation more successful? How about the supervisor? What factors might have promoted successful change for Lucy and Ethel?

Appendix I: Cohort 1 Syllabus – Literacy Early Literacy: Research and Practice In-STEP, Fall 2013 Instructor: Carol McDonald Connor, PhD Overview

a. Use Final Word

Reading is a human invention that coopts parts of the brain originally designed for other tasks, such as language, hearing, and perception. In order to learn how to read, most children require careful and highly technical instruction. The purpose of the class is to investigate three topics central to early literacy instruction: (i) research on early literacy,(ii) transforming research to practice, and (iii) effective early literacy instruction. Hands-on activities will be designed to give practice with organizing lessons and examining instructional materials.

b. 3 minutes, 1 min each and 1 min for final word, approx. 45 min

Books

3. Presentation: WG 4. Discussion Protocol on Readings – 9 Groups (5 or 6 ea.)

5. Jigsaw reading of Leadership, Learning, and Successful Program Implementation by Tobia and Hord in Implementing Change Through Learning a. 6 to a group – count off b. Each person reads page 13 and bottom of 17 and 18 as well as their numbered section

• Making Sense of Phonics, Beck and Beck • Teaching Reading Source Book, Honig et al. • Additional materials drawn from K-1 Student Center Activities: Phonics (2005), Florida Center for Reading Research Course Content Unit 1

c. Each person teaches their section to the group, using best teaching

— Defining Reading

d. Then individually complete Handout 2.1 on their own project

— History of Reading Instruction and National/State Reform Policies in USA

e. Discuss as a group

— Overview of Reading Research

f. Quick review as a large group

— Phonological Awareness, Word Decoding, and Fluency — Oral Language and Vocabulary

g. Create a chart that summarizes all six projects in each of the six strategies

— Motivation and Learning Strategies

h. Report out the larger group

— Cognitive Development and Reading

6. Revisit Lucy and the chocolate factory a. Regroup with your original group that you discussed the Lucy video with and using two of the 10 principles of change be prepared to make recommendations to the leadership at the Candy Company. (Randomly Assign 10 groups) b. We need every principle discussed so I am assigning one to each group and you will select your second principle to discuss. c. Your job is to prepare recommendations to the leadership at the Candy Company to support successful change based on the 10 principles of change. 7. Next Steps: 4 Volunteers for next class

— Multi-Component Interventions Unit 2 — Reading Assessments — Standardized Assessments — Curriculum-based Assessments — Assessment to instruction — Differentiated/Individualized Reading Instruction — Using literacy core materials — Research to Practice – Code-focused instruction — Making Sense of Phonics • Phonological Awareness

a. Reading Chapter3 of Hall and Hord on Innovation Configuration Maps for change initiatives and for Nov 25 and

• Phonics and the alphabetic principle

b. Chapters 4 & 5 for Nov 26. The Study Guides will be posted on Monday, Nov 18. Please come to class ready to discuss and work through the concepts each day

Unit 3

• Fluency — Helping students make sense of text — Oral language and vocabulary — Comprehension • Strategies • Academic/Content Area Literacy — Writing — Motivation and self-regulated learning — Practical implications for reform in your country

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

69


Appendix J: Cohort 1 Syllabus – Sustainability Science Sustainability Science for Teachers In-STEP, Fall 2013 Instructors Dr. Lee Hartwell (Virginia G. Piper Chair in Personalized Medicine, President and Director Emeritus of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine) Dr. Mary Jane Parmentier (Senior lecturer in the Global Technology and Development, International Researcher and Liaison, Sustainability Science Education Dr. Leanna Archambault (Assistant Professor, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College; Lead Researcher and Liaison, Sustainability Science Education) Annie Warren (Program Director) Meeting Dates

Workshop Big Themes Cross cultural explorations: U.S. and India • Culture as an iceberg metaphor • General observations about U.S. culture after four months • Specific observations about cultural differences and education • Comparisons with Indian, regional cultures • Cultural perspectives on sustainability Presentation of Sustainability Science for Teachers course, which will broaden and deepen participants’ understanding of the following concepts through each of the workshop content areas: • We are seeking solutions to problems: Sustainability is about achieving a society where people’s needs are met now and in the future. We will find that no human need is being met globally in a sustainable way now so each becomes a problem seeking a solution. • There are limits to resources: Meeting human needs requires resources that come from nature. There are limits to all resources and therefore there will be limits to the number of people whose needs can be met.

Wednesday, December 4, 1:45pm – 4:30pm Wednesday, December 11, 1:45pm – 4:30pm Wednesday, December 18, 1:45pm – 4:30pm

• Advances in technology can reset limits: Technology can be implemented to be sustainable or unsustainable. One of the challenges of the 21st century is to figure out how to deploy technologies sustainably and phase out unsustainable practices.

Workshop Information

• Solutions require collaboration: We must borrow insights from many fields of expertise in order to understand nature and our interaction with it. Successful solutions can only be achieved if all stakeholders are involved.

The Sustainability Science for Teachers workshop for the In-STEP teacher educators from India is designed to introduce participants the topic of sustainability in a cross cultural setting, as well as share with them the SST course presently taught at ASU and required of all teachers in training. The course explores the challenges of sustaining human health and well-being on Earth due to human exploitation of natural resources, and sustainable solutions through science, technology, and society acting at global and local levels. The workshop for the Indian participants is structured with guided discussions and group activities that examine the challenges and solutions for sustainability within the participants’ cultural and social contexts. This workshop also focuses on how to teach sustainability concepts in the classroom.

• Problems and solutions are both global and local: Natural cycles, human trade, and transportation assure that actions taken at a local level will ultimately have global consequences. Workshop Format The format consists of brief introductions to themes by lectures, interactive discussions and activities, online videos and group work where participants constructed lesson plans relevant to their teachers, schools, and towns. This included the exploration of topics that consider the global issues of sustainability, in class activities that consider solutions at the local level (personal, professional, and community), as well as conversations about the challenges related to sharing this topic at the elementary and secondary school levels.

Workshop Calendar Session

Workshop Outcomes

Topic

1

Participants will explore the concept of culture and the basic definition of sustainability and will discuss global issues of sustainably and its appropriateness as an important topic for them as teacher educators.

Introduction Cross-cultural activity and discussion Concept of sustainability and discussion

Participants will explore the following content-related concepts and the importance of being able to teach these topics in their classrooms:

Presentation of the topic of production and disposal Explore four lenses for considering sustainability topics:

2

1. Earth currently cannot sustainably support many more people than already exist.

1. Futures thinking,

2. Affluent nations have a different understanding of production and disposal

2. Values thinking,

3. Most developing nations are becoming affluent quickly and what does this mean for their young students? What jobs will they have in the future and what will that world look like.

3. Systems thinking,

4. Explore the four lenses* for considering sustainability topics. Ways of thinking and considering the world we currently live in and thinking about where we want to go in the future (see next page for more information on four lenses).

70

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

4. Strategic thinking.

Workshop Calendar Session

Workshop Outcomes

Topic

3

Participants will discuss the following content-related concepts and the importance of being able to teach these topics in their future classrooms:

Reiteration of goals of sustainability science topics for teachers and creation of lesson plans for Indian context.

1. Many people are deprived of basic needs. 2. Resources are adequate to meet all needs, but are very unequally distributed. 3. How do address the topic of sustainability with students who have very little. 4. Main issues of sustainability in their contexts. 5. Participants will create an appropriate lesson plan related to relevant issue of sustainability that could be implemented in their teacher training program.

*Four Lenses for Considering Sustainability Topics. 1. Futures thinking – Futures thinking means thinking about how the past and present influence the future. To live more sustainably, we must appreciate the process by which the solutions of the past have become the problems of today. We must anticipate how the solutions of today might become the problems of tomorrow. 2. Values thinking – Values thinking means being able to examine the effects our values have on our decisions. The influence of values on our decisions is often unconscious, and people tend not to think about their values. Sometimes people don’t know exactly what their values are, or why they have them. This can make communication and education very difficult. Values thinking recognizes that different people have different values, and that particular values are neither good or bad. This can be especially difficult when someone else’s values do not align with your own. 3. Systems thinking – Systems thinking means understanding how systems are interconnected, as well as understanding the dynamics within systems. A system is a configuration of parts connected and joined together by a web of relationships. This means that in systems, it is difficult to predict the outcome of a single change since many things are influenced in concert. 4. Strategic thinking – Strategic thinking means being able to develop a strategy, or plan, to achieve a particular vision. Strategic thinking frames every decision by how it contributes to achieving that vision. When we work toward a sustainable future, strategic thinking helps us progress through a long-term strategy, rather than reacting to problems with short-term fixes. Sustainability Science for Teachers (SSFT) ASU class visit: An optional class observation experience will be provided to a select group of Instep participants who show enthusiasm for the subject area. Participants will observe a section of SSFT that has 30 preservice elementary education ASU students. Participants will experience both constructivists teaching methods related to the course and the content of sustainability. Participants will participate in a preparatory lunch meeting to better understand the class they will observe and the topic/content and pedagogical strategies that will be deployed by the instructor of the course. After observing the ASU course, participants will debrief over lunch on their experience.

Appendix K: Cohort 1 Syllabus – Technology Introduction to Integrating Technology into Teaching and Learning In-STEP, Fall 2013 Instructors: Leanna Archambault, Ph.D. and Keith Wetzel, Ph.D. Meeting Dates: October 10 – December 19 Meeting Times: Tuesdays and Thursdays: 10:30am-12:00pm Course Description and Purpose This workshop is an entry-level experience that focuses on methods for effectively integrating computer-based technology in teaching and learning. The workshop is an investigation into the uses of computers and computerbased technology in the classroom, integration of technology into teaching and learning process, and designing and developing technology-based instruction/learning materials for educational/training settings. Topics include learning theory and technology, student and teacher productivity tools, and web-based applications focusing on connecting learners to one another, to their instructors, and to available online materials. Emphasis will be on current implementation issues as well as future trends. The purpose of this experience is to explore the potential of educational technology in a teaching context. The course will survey many instructional technologies but will examine some specifically. Ultimately, ILEP fellows will be prepared to continue learning with and about technology after the conclusion of the workshop. An important goal of the course is for students to be empowered with computer-based technology. Students should gain a solid introduction and the motivation to use technology for personal and professional purposes. This class is designed to provide a positive beginning to a lifelong learning process. Course Format Participants will engage in an action-oriented classroom, which will feature illustrated lectures, discussion, demonstration, hands-on activities and presentations, and project presentations. The emphasis will be on doing rather than talking about computers and their uses in educational settings. Your assignments will require additional hands-on time outside of our scheduled class. Technology helpers are available in the afternoons to assist and work with you one-on-one. You should plan to take advantage of this service, and plan on setting aside dedicated work time outside of our technology workshop to build your skills. The more you use and experiment with computers and software, the richer your learning experience will be.

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

71


Week

Topic

Readings/Resources (Provided within Edmodo)

Week

Topic

Readings/Resources (Provided within Edmodo)

1

Introduction to the Workshop • Productivity Tools for Administrators • Teaching and Learning withTechnology • Platform for Project Support • Review of Survey Results • Goals and Objectives • On-Campus Resources • Web-based Translation Tools • Overview of Edmodo

http://www.edmodo.com http://asuinstep.weebly.com/edmodo.html http://google.translate.com Roblyer (2011). Introduction and Background on Integrating Technology in Education (PDF within Edmodo)

8

Creating a Professional Portfolio • Using Weebly to Create an ePortfolio

Educause – An Overview of ePortfolios http://asuinstep.weebly.com/weebly.html

9

Using Existing Technologies in Your DIETs/Schools • Smartboard/Interactive White Board Training • Continuation of Building ePortfolios

Marzano, R. (2009). The Art and Science of Teaching / Teaching with Interactive Whiteboards. Educational Leadership, 67, 3 pp 80-82

Administrator/Teacher Uses of Technology Photo Search Tools • Web browser navigation • Definitions and examples • Locate pictures using key words • Search for images that illustrate constructivist learning at young ages – to contrast with images of teacher-centered instruction • Bookmark each photo • Create slideshow using PhotoPeach

ISTE NETS for Teachers ISTE NETS for Administrators http://www.photoPeach.com http://www.googleguide.com/images.html http://asuinstep.weebly.com/transferringphotos.html http://asuinstep.weebly.com/photoPeach.html

3

Presenting Professionally • PowerPoint Design Issues and PhotoPeach Presentations

13 Steps to Better Instructional Visuals for Electronic Presentation http://asuinstep.weebly.com/powerpointextras.html

4

Demonstration of New Technologies for Embodied Learning by Dr. Mina Johnson • Mars Rover to teach Physics and Alien Health to teach Nutrition Science

Johnson-Glenberg, M. et al. (2013) Collaborative Embodied Learning in Mixed Reality Motion-Capture Environments: Two Science Studies The magic behind a good school newsletter Building a School Website http://asuinstep.weebly.com/weebly.html

2

Communicating with Stakeholders • Using Word to Create a School Newsletter • Using Weebly to Create a School Website 5

6

7

Marzano Research Laboratory: Teaching With Interactive Whiteboards

Digital Footprint and Social Media Digital Citizenship: Resource Roundup Digital Literacy and Citizenship Classroom Curriculum

Using Technology To Gather Data • Creating Google Forms • Accessing and analyzing generated data

http://asuinstep.weebly.com/google-forms.html Creating a Google Form Innovative Ideas for Using Google Forms in Education

Open Educational Resources (OERs) • Finding and sharing relevant information, ideas, and curriculum materials in a collaborative manner • Evaluating OERs • Implementing OERs in the classroom

Open Educational Resources: Resource Roundup • CK12.org • Curriki • SAS Curriculum Pathways • Concord Consortium • TED-Ed • North Carolina Lesson Plans • MERLOT • Connexions • Open Course Library • Wisconsin Online Learning Objects • National Repository of Online Courses (NROC) • Flat World Knowledge • Hippocampus • Khan Academy • The Index of Open Educational Resources • PBS Education Resources • http://sse.asu.edu

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

10

http://asuinstep.weebly.com/weebly.html

Presentation from Center for Games & Impact – Dr. Sasha Barab, Director Conclusion and Sharing of ePortfolios Setting up Edmodo for Use in India

Course Objectives

Culminating Project

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has developed the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for students and teachers. This course will deal with many of the standards advocated in the “NETS for Teachers” publication. To view the complete document, go to http://cnets.iste.org.

E-Portfolio

• TF-III.A. Facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address content standards and student technology standards with the following: 1. productivity tools 2. communication tools 3. research tools 4. problem solving/ decision-making tools

Digital Citizenship and Information Literacy • Monitoring your Digital Footprint • Use of social media in education • Acceptable use policies • Advance search techniques • Online information evaluation

Using Digital Storytelling to Teach Sustainability to Preservice Teachers • Presentations from Dr. Lee Hartwell, Nobel Laureate and Professor, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College and Dr. Mary Jane Parmentier, Senior Sustainability Scientist, School of Sustainability

72

Marzano, R. Technology Combined with Good Teaching Leads to Success. Edutopia

5. media-based tools (e.g., television, audio, print media, and graphics) 6. distance learning systems 7. web-based and non-web-based authoring tools. • TF-III.B. Use technology to support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse needs of students. • TF-III.C. Apply technology to demonstrate students’ higher order skills and creativity. • TF-III.D. Manage student learning activities in a technology-enhanced environment. Course Activities Learning Tasks/Performance Assessments Each week will have one or more learning tasks that we will work on in class. These vary in complexity from simple synthesis of information to complex implementation of ideas. The goal of these activities will be to improve technology literacy and to build your proficiency with productivity and web-based tools that can be used in the classroom. Weekly assignments and materials will be posted to our Edmodo group so that you can access these resources online.

Each participant will create a summative web-based portfolio of ongoing assignments and tasks completed throughout the technology workshop. A web-based portfolio will allow you to archive and display a wide range of your work using various types of media. This will serve not only as an archive of your work while a part of the InSTEP program, but it will also provide you with a professional outlet and a presence on the web. Goals • Establish a clear, summative assessment of student learning • Provide students with an interesting and valuable assessment for learning, with opportunities for reflection, feedback, and discussion. E-Portfolio Requirements Your e-portfolio will be created using a web-based tool called Weebly. You will have ample opportunity to become familiar with Weebly as a web editing tool in class, but you will need to spend additional time working on this culminating project. In addition to a main page and title using a provided template, your portfolio should include the following elements: • a home page introduction • a subpage page including your Action Proposal • a subpage page titled “Methods of Teaching” containing a link to your PhotoPeach slideshow on instructivism and constructivism. • a subpage page titled “Action Proposal Presentation” containing your PowerPoint presentation • a subpage page titled “Action Proposal Inservice Rehearsal” including your video and/or presentation • a subpage page titled “Resources” that includes links to a minimum of five online resources and other documents on this page. • a subpage page titled “Map of DIET or Institute” • a subpage titled “Pictures of In-Step Project in U.S.A.” in which you create a slideshow of a minimum of 15 pictures featuring of experiences in the U.S. • a subpage titled “Hippocratic Oath” containing this document • a subpage titled “Ethics” that includes a link to PhotoPeach DC

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

73


Criteria

Emerging

Proficient

Excelling

Home Page

Page created with basic title

Page created with title and text that explains the purpose of the EP

Page created with title and text that explains the purpose of the EP, along with a personal photo

Number of Main Pages

One or two pages created using a provided template

Three to four pages created using a provided template

Five to seven pages created using a provided template

Uploaded Personal Pictures on Pages

One picture uploaded on a single page – may or may not relate to program

Multiple pictures on at least two pages

Multiple pictures throughout entire portfolio providing a sense of the participant’s background and experience

E-Portfolio Sub-pages indented under main page

Three to four subpages created under the list of requirements

Five to six subpages created under the list of requirements

Seven to eight subpages created, meeting the entire described list of requirements

Action Proposal with link to proposal

Page created but content is missing

Methods of Teaching Artifact

Page created but content is missing

Pictures of In-STEP Project in U.S.

Page created but content is missing

InSTEP Project page created with a slideshow of a minimum of 15 pictures featuring of experiences in the U.S.

Hippocratic Oath

Page created but content is missing

Hippocratic Oath content page created with functioning link to document or document embedded within the page

Action proposal content page created with upload of full proposal that is accessible via the web Method of Teaching content page including link to completed artifact in the form of a PhotoPeach slideshow

Ethics Slideshow

Page created but content is missing

Ethics Content page with link to PhotoPeach slideshow using pictures from Washington DC trip

Action Research

Page created but content is missing

Action Research Content page with embedded video of action research presentation and/or a link to Action Research PowerPoint presentation

Map of Diet

Page created but content is missing

Page containing map widget displaying address of your school/DIET

External Resources

Page created but content is missing

74

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

Page created with two to three resources provided

Appendix L: Social Survey – Questionnaire Social Survey My name is Wen-Ting Chung. I am the Principal Program Evaluator for the In-STEP project. This survey focuses on your social interactions with In-STEP participants and ASU Staff. Your participation in this survey will help us understand how social interactions and professional learning communities play a role in teacher educators’ professional development and long-term reform actions. This survey will take approximately 30 minutes. Your participation is voluntary and your responses will be confidential. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, please contact Wen-Ting Chung (wenting.chung@gmail.com). If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board, through the ASU Office of Research Integrity and Assurance, at (480) 965-6788. If you agree to complete the survey, please start filling out the information. Thanks for your participation. Please provide the following information first: 1. Your Name: ________________________________________________ 2. With whom do you share your apartment (who are your roommates)? ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

A few pages of the social survey are included as Appendix L.

Resources Page created with multiple external links to at least four to six quality resources

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

75


1. When you have a problem with your learning activities (e.g., learning course materials, doing assignments, preparing presentation, etc.), to whom do you go for advice? Please check Yes box for those people you go to for advice, and check how often you go to them. Rate: 1-Only Once or Twice

2-Sometimes

3-Often

4-Most of Time

5-Almost Always

2. Are there people who come to you for advice in case they have a problem with their learning activities (e.g., learning course materials, doing assignments, preparing presentation, etc.)? Please check the Yes box for those people who come to you for advice, and check how often they come to you. Rate: 1-Only Once or Twice

Yes 12 34 5 Group: Assam

Group: Bihar 1

Group: Bihar 2

Group: Madhya Pradesh

Group: Meghalaya

Yes

76

1 2 3 4 5

Name

In-STEP Participants

Deva Kumar Dutta Manmayuri Goswami Nirupoma Barik Saikia Tridib Bordoloi Uttam Bordoloi Abha Rani Ratna Ghosh Rakesh Kumar Rakesh Kumar Choudhary Sitaram Prasad Akhtar Sayeed Awadhesh Prasad Thakur Benkat Gopal Deepa Rani Sahoo G Shankar Prakash Ranjan Anjum Ara Atul Kumar Danayak Brij Bihari Prasad Gupta Rajni Jha Ranjeeta Joshi Aditie Momin Bala Nongbri Bashan Diengdoh David Nongrum Elsadora Sangma Gracefulness Sten

Name

Ara Barsam Sarup Mathur Suzanne Painter Christopher Clark Keith Wetzel Leanna Archambault Arus Mirzakhanyan Kevin Keller Kristine Wilcox BJ Stone (McREL)

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

2-Sometimes

Yes 12 34 5 Name Group: Mizoram and Nagaland

Group: Odisha

Group: Uttar Pradesh 1

Group: Uttar Pradesh 2

Group: Uttar Pradesh 3

Uttar Pradesh 4

ASU Staff Yes

1 2 3 45

Joseph Lalsangzuala Christina Solo Vanlaltanpuii (Puii) Daktar Murmu Dibakar Sarangi Nibedita Guru Tapas Kumar Nayak Lipika Sahu Amrit Upadhyay Devendra Kumar Jai Prakash Ojha RCD Bajpai Shailendra Asthana Alok Kumar Jayshree Singh Madhulika Shivani Yadav Sushma Gupta Avanish Kumar Yadav Bhagwati Singh Deepa Tiwari Shamreen Fatima

Yes 12 34 5 Group: Assam

Group: Bihar 1

Group: Bihar 2

Group: Madhya Pradesh

Group: Meghalaya

Nidhi Rastogi Sarvada Nand Shalini Singh Tina Mohan

Name

Cynthia Mruczek (Equity) Adai Tefera (Equity) Taucia Gonzalez (Equity) David Hernandez Saca (Equity) Gustavo Fischman (Democracy) Teddy Broussard (TAP) Dennis Dotterer (TAP) Kay Coleman (Leadership) Wen-Ting Chung

Yes

1 2 3 4 5

Name

Abha Rani Ratna Ghosh Rakesh Kumar Rakesh Kumar Choudhary Sitaram Prasad Akhtar Sayeed Awadhesh Prasad Thakur Benkat Gopal Deepa Rani Sahoo G Shankar Prakash Ranjan Anjum Ara Atul Kumar Danayak Brij Bihari Prasad Gupta Rajni Jha Ranjeeta Joshi

Name

Ara Barsam Sarup Mathur Suzanne Painter Christopher Clark Keith Wetzel Leanna Archambault Arus Mirzakhanyan Kevin Keller Kristine Wilcox BJ Stone (McREL)

4-Most of Time

5- Almost Always

In-STEP Participants

Deva Kumar Dutta Manmayuri Goswami Nirupoma Barik Saikia Tridib Bordoloi Uttam Bordoloi

Aditie Momin Bala Nongbri Bashan Diengdoh David Nongrum Elsadora Sangma Gracefulness Sten

3-Often

Yes 12 34 5 Name Group: Mizoram and Nagaland

Group: Odisha

Group: Uttar Pradesh 1

Group: Uttar Pradesh 2

Group: Uttar Pradesh 3

Uttar Pradesh 4

ASU Staff Yes

1 2 3 45

Joseph Lalsangzuala Christina Solo Vanlaltanpuii (Puii) Daktar Murmu Dibakar Sarangi Nibedita Guru Tapas Kumar Nayak Lipika Sahu Amrit Upadhyay Devendra Kumar Jai Prakash Ojha RCD Bajpai Shailendra Asthana Alok Kumar Jayshree Singh Madhulika Shivani Yadav Sushma Gupta Avanish Kumar Yadav Bhagwati Singh Deepa Tiwari Shamreen Fatima Nidhi Rastogi Sarvada Nand Shalini Singh Tina Mohan

Name

Cynthia Mruczek (Equity) Adai Tefera (Equity) Taucia Gonzalez (Equity) David Hernandez Saca (Equity) Gustavo Fischman (Democracy) Teddy Broussard (TAP) Dennis Dotterer (TAP) Kay Coleman (Leadership) Wen-Ting Chung

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

77


Appendix M: Social Survey – Density Matrices

Appendix M: Social Survey – Density Matrices (continued)

Question 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Question 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Assam (5)

0.750

1. Assam (5)

0.950

2. Bihar #1 (5)

0.400

0.600

2. Bihar #1 (5)

0.500

0.700

3. Bihar #2 (6)

0.491

0.509

0.533

3. Bihar #2 (6)

0.536

0.500

0.567

4. Madhya Pradesh (5)

0.422

0.478

0.427

4. Madhya Pradesh (5)

0.478

0.511

0.391

5. Meghalaya (6)

0.445 0.355 0.424 0.345 0.600

5. Meghalaya (6)

0.482 0.455 0.394 0.400 0.833

0.550

0.850

6. Mizoram & Nagaland (3) 0.375 0.429 0.333 0.357 0.375 0.333

6. Mizoram & Nagaland (3) 0.518 0.411 0.403 0.429 0.764 1.000

7. Odisha (5)

0.489 0.411 0.418 0.367 0.345 0.304 0.650

7. Odisha (5)

0.600 0.511 0.527 0.422 0.455 0.446 0.850

8. Uttar Pradesh #1 (5)

0.467 0.378 0.345 0.322 0.300 0.196 0.367 0.400

8. Uttar Pradesh #1 (5)

0.486 0.444 0.367 0.347 0.367 0.286 0.500 0.333

9. Uttar Pradesh #2 (5)

0.411 0.278 0.345 0.322 0.236 0.179 0.289 0.333 0.300

9. Uttar Pradesh #2 (5)

0.344 0.300 0.300 0.411 0.345 0.214 0.311 0.278 0.200

10. Uttar Pradesh #3 (4)

0.389 0.347 0.356 0.431 0.289 0.214 0.278 0.361 0.292 0.417

10. Uttar Pradesh #3 (4)

0.375 0.361 0.311 0.486 0.389 0.333 0.292 0.268 0.208 0.333

11. UP4 & Uttarakhand (4) 0.431 0.333 0.311 0.292 0.267 0.119 0.333 0.264 0.181 0.214 0.167

11. UP4 & Uttarakhand (4) 0.514 0.417 0.356 0.444 0.544 0.405 0.431 0.339 0.403 0.232 0.583

Question 2

Question 5

1. Assam (5)

0.650

1. Assam (5)

0.700

2. Bihar #1 (5)

0.400

3. Bihar #2 (6)

0.318

0.700

2. Bihar #1 (5)

0.444

0.650

0.455

0.500

3. Bihar #2 (6)

0.391

0.473

0.467

4. Madhya Pradesh (5)

0.378

0.500

0.391

4. Madhya Pradesh (5)

0.411

0.411

0.309

5. Meghalaya (6)

0.327 0.373 0.311 0.300 0.467

5. Meghalaya (6)

0.464 0.409 0.326 0.355 0.767

0.700

0.800

6. Mizoram & Nagaland (3) 0.339 0.446 0.250 0.357 0.250 0.167

6. Mizoram & Nagaland (3) 0.393 0.375 0.306 0.375 0.514 0.800

7. Odisha (5)

0.400 0.478 0.418 0.356 0.282 0.250 0.600

7. Odisha (5)

0.378 0.400 0.336 0.311 0.309 0.250 0.450

8. Uttar Pradesh #1 (5)

0.356 0.411 0.336 0.311 0.264 0.214 0.400 0.550

8. Uttar Pradesh #1 (5)

0.322 0.300 0.282 0.289 0.264 0.196 0.289 0.300

9. Uttar Pradesh #2 (5)

0.389 0.356 0.345 0.367 0.209 0.161 0.333 0.378 0.350

9. Uttar Pradesh #2 (5)

0.322 0.233 0.227 0.233 0.236 0.125 0.178 0.189 0.100

10. Uttar Pradesh #3 (4)

0.292 0.389 0.300 0.528 0.244 0.167 0.292 0.444 0.333 0.417

10. Uttar Pradesh #3 (4)

0.306 0.292 0.244 0.403 0.300 0.262 0.194 0.208 0.125 0.333

11. UP4 & Uttarakhand (4) 0.361 0.389 0.278 0.375 0.244 0.095 0.389 0.361 0.347 0.214 0.250

11. UP4 & Uttarakhand (4) 0.375 0.292 0.233 0.333 0.300 0.238 0.264 0.250 0.236 0.161 0.250

Question 3

Question 6

1. Assam (5)

0.800

1. Assam (5)

1.000

2. Bihar #1 (5)

0.456

0.650

2. Bihar #1 (5)

0.578

0.750

3. Bihar #2 (6)

0.482

0.473

0.500

3. Bihar #2 (6)

0.655

0.700

0.700

4. Madhya Pradesh (5)

0.533

0.489

0.409

4. Madhya Pradesh (5)

0.667

0.611

0.373

5. Meghalaya (6)

0.427 0.355 0.386 0.409 0.633

5. Meghalaya (6)

0.964 0.591 0.424 0.545 1.000

0.900

1.000

6. Mizoram & Nagaland (3) 0.482 0.393 0.333 0.500 0.500 0.833

6. Mizoram & Nagaland (3) 0.839 0.482 0.181 0.571 0.917 1.000

7. Odisha (5)

0.522 0.511 0.455 0.522 0.391 0.464 0.800

7. Odisha (5)

0.711 0.578 0.409 0.556 0.636 0.500 0.750

8. Uttar Pradesh #1 (5)

0.478 0.344 0.364 0.400 0.282 0.321 0.489 0.550

8. Uttar Pradesh #1 (5)

0.600 0.456 0.327 0.411 0.455 0.339 0.567 0.600

9. Uttar Pradesh #2 (5)

0.389 0.256 0.273 0.344 0.236 0.179 0.378 0.300 0.150

9. Uttar Pradesh #2 (5)

0.611 0.467 0.336 0.589 0.618 0.536 0.556 0.567 0.750

10. Uttar Pradesh #3 (4)

0.403 0.319 0.289 0.528 0.289 0.310 0.375 0.361 0.208 0.333

10. Uttar Pradesh #3 (4)

0.839 0.804 0.444 0.929 0.819 0.800 0.732 0.875 0.964 1.000

11. UP4 & Uttarakhand (4) 0.500 0.389 0.289 0.542 0.344 0.333 0.486 0.431 0.333 0.286 0.500

78

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

11. UP4 & Uttarakhand (4) 0.764 0.597 0.400 0.694 0.867 0.667 0.653 0.653 0.778 1.000 0.917

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

79


Appendix N: Edmodo Assignment – June 2014 May 7, 2014 Dear In-STEP Fellows, Congratulations on your many accomplishments in improving teaching and teacher education in India. Your monthly reports of progress in your reform proposals are excellent beginnings to new chapters in your careers as continuously improving professionals. Your initial reform projects are small in scale, but we share your belief that large, long-lasting effects begin with small, thoughtful changes. Final Reports. Now it is time to reflect on and to document your first cycle of reform and to plan your follow-on cycle of reform. The format of your final reports will be a PowerPoint presentation that follows the format below: There should be seven slides only, with images and/or words. You can use the Notes section to write a sentence or two. We are also attaching the first two slides of a PowerPoint that we might do ourselves, to report on our work. Notice how we used the notes section on slide 2 for a brief explanation. We only did two slides, but this gives you an example of how to begin. Slide 1. Title or theme or your reform project. Your name, title and institution. Slide 2. An image or figure that shows the action that you took and the intended benefits.

Slide 3. An image showing the categories of evidence that you collected to document your reform project and its results. What persuades you or someone else that something different has happened because of your work? Slide 4. Three lessons learned from implementing your reform proposal. What do you know now that you didn’t know when you returned to work in January? Slide 5. Three ways in which you are different as a professional as a result of implementing your reform project. Slide 6. Next steps: An image showing your plan for a second cycle of small-scale reform (similar to Slide 2, oriented to the near future). Slide 7. Thank you! (in whatever language(s) you like.) Post your final report to Edmodo on or before June 15, 2014 as a response to this assignment. Remember that an effective PowerPoint slide has only a few words on each slide – choose your words and images with economy in mind. (You can type explanatory text in the Notes section of each slide – a short script of what you would say orally while each slide is being projected.) Finally, before you post your final report, exchange it with a critical friend and ask for feedback and suggestions for improvement and simplification. Take this feedback into account before you post your final report, and give thoughtful feedback on your critical friend’s draft final report as well. We wish you every success, happiness, and satisfaction as leaders in Indian teacher education. Chris Clark and Suzanne Painter

June, 2013 – June, 2014 This report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under Cooperative Agreement AID-386-A-13-00005. The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Arizona State University and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States government. 80

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

©2014 Arizona State University. Edmodo, Google, Intel, Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, PowerPeach, Smart and Weebly and their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks belonging to their respective owners. 2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

81


Contact PO Box 37100 Mail Code: 1252 Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100 Undergraduate: (480) 965-5555 Graduate: (602) 543-6358 Stay connected to Teachers College Website: education.asu.edu Facebook: facebook.com/educationasu Twitter: @asueducation LinkedIn: ASU Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College

82

2013-2014 In-STEP PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT

In-STEP Annual Report  
In-STEP Annual Report  
Advertisement