A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 7 Global Education Review is a publication of The School of Education at Mercy College, New York. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Citation: Benson, Fiona & Hooton, Kate (2014). A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component of a Canadian Teacher Education Program: What Drove Change, What Insights Were Gleaned, and What Challenges Lie Ahead. Global Education Review, 1 (3). 7-62. A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component Of a Canadian Teacher Education Program: What Drove Change, What Insights Were Gleaned, And What Challenges Lie Ahead Fiona Benson McGill University Kate Hooton McGill University Abstract This paper explores the many and diverse factors that have driven changes to the field-based component of a program of teacher education in a large Canadian university over the past 10 years. We look at key contexts of influence to any work in program change; that of internal and external bodies at the institutional level, the operational or program delivery level, feedback from stakeholders in teacher education, and lastly, the research and scholarship in teacher education that provides a framework for innovation and improvement. A significant inclusion in this paper is the perspective on the support at ground level that is required, but rarely acknowledged, to move any change initiatives forward. We present models that capture a decade of change to 4 undergraduate field experiences and 2 graduate level internships that comprise the field component of our teacher education program. We share key indicators of success resulting from these changes, highlight important insights gleaned, and point to pressing challenges that we face as we look to future program evolution that will carry us into the next decade. While this work reflects one single field-based component of a teacher education program in Canada, we trust that useful parallels can be drawn by the reader as they contemplate or are in the process of addressing and moving through similar orbits of change and evolution within their own programs. Keywords practice teaching, teacher education, program design, field experience, policy, change Introduction “There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction”. Winston Churchill As teacher educators, administrators and policy makers in teacher preparation programs globally, we are charged with providing society with competent, prepared, effective, engaged, and caring teachers. In order to deliver such exemplary teachers, and to operationalize this shared goal of excellence in teacher education, we are continually looking to evolve our ______________________________ Corresponding Author: Kate Hooton, McGill University, Office of Student Teaching, 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1Y2 Email: kate.hooton@mcgill.ca mailto:kate.hooton@mcgill.ca 8 Global Education Review 1(3) programs in order to strengthen and improve them. Crucial to that process is change, and while there exist many and diverse factors that drive change in teacher education, I draw on the concept of change defined as “an act or process through which something becomes different” in order to “arrive at a fresh phase; become new” (Oxforddictionaries.com) in this report on the evolution of changes wrought, during my 10 year tenure as Director, to the field-based practice teaching component of the McGill University Faculty of Education Teacher Education Program in Montreal, Quebec. The importance and usefulness of practice teaching within programs of teacher education is reflected in the words of Darling-Hammond who describes this program component as "the glue for powerful preparation" (2006, p. 152). Using the undergraduate field experiences and graduate internships of my own program of teacher education as a case study, I share what has driven the changes that have been made to these field-based elements over the past 10 years, present key indicators of progress resulting from this work, highlight important insights gleaned, and point to the challenges we face as we look to future program evolution. While this work reflects one single field-based component of a teacher education program in a large urban university in Canada – I trust that useful parallels can be drawn by the reader as they contemplate or are in the process of addressing and moving through similar orbits of change and evolution within their own programs. A significant inclusion in this paper is the perspective on the support, at ground level, that is required but rarely acknowledged, to move any change initiatives forward. Of note too, is that my efforts to spearhead change over the past decade have been made possible through generous and fruitful collaboration with colleagues in administrative positions in the units and departments that make up McGill’s Faculty of Education. I am convinced, based on the evidence from a decade of work, that the successful evolution of the field-based component of a teacher education program cannot be realized other than through a deep appreciation of the critical congruence that must exist between the program and the field. Contexts for Change Change can be reactive or proactive, and can be in response to internal and external factors (Fullan, 2007). As our mission as educators falls squarely within the realm of public service, we are responsible to a variety of bodies. At the institutional level, teacher education program change is influenced by both internal and external institutional bodies. At the operational or program delivery level, feedback from stakeholders is key to making relevant and effective revisions and responses. Lastly, research and scholarship in education provide a framework for innovation and improvement. To better situate the reader, I provide a summary of the landscape of Quebec English language education, and offer some brief insight into the internal and external factors that influence the capacity for change in programs of teacher education in Quebec, Canada. A Brief Introduction to English Language Education in Quebec The province of Quebec will have reached 8,054,545 by July 1st, 2012. Of this population, which is close to 25% of Canada’s 34 million inhabitants, some 8 million, approximately 80% are French speaking while 8% are English speaking (Statistics Canada, 2011). Quebec’s Charter of the French Language (1977), colloquially known as “Bill 101”, restricts access to English education by allowing only those children whose parents were themselves educated in English to attend English elementary and secondary schools. As such, most francophones and immigrants to Quebec attend French schools. Around 50% of Quebec’s inhabitants are located in Montreal, the urban population of which currently sits at 3,824,221 A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 9 (Statistics Canada, 2012). With urban centers still providing the strongest draw not only for immigrants but also for those relocating from rural Quebec, the province still experiences a vibrant difference between its regional homogeneity and its urban diversity. While this is formally attended to, at least in part, by the province’s 14 French School Boards and 9 English School Boards, it is still the case that tensions arising from cultural, linguistic and geographical realities make for an extremely intricate educational landscape in Quebec (Lamarre, 2008). It is also quite clearly the case that, serving as the largest English university in the majority French speaking province of Quebec, the role of McGill’s Faculty of Education is a complex and evolving one. Institutional Factors External Governance In countries such as Canada, with public and mandatory schooling, the criteria as to who can be a teacher are under the purview of each province (Nuland, 2011). In the province of Quebec, teacher education programs answer to three governing bodies. This creates a rather complex governance structure, which both constrains and drives change. Below are highlighted the main directives which influence or demand change in our provincial teacher education programs, from the perspective of those formal bodies. Prior to the election of the present government, the Parti Québécois, in Fall of 2012, the Quebec Ministry of Education [Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS)1] was responsible for all levels of educational institutions, from elementary and secondary schooling to CEGEP2 and University level programs. The MELS mandated school curriculum, the Quebec Education Program (QEP) implemented in 2001 is currently in place at all grade levels 1 through 11. The QEP is competency based, with specific competencies for each subject area, as well as cross-curricular competencies and broad areas of learning which apply across curricular programs. The MELS also mandates 12 exit professional competencies to be developed within university programs leading to teacher certification. The professional competencies, in tandem with the QEP competencies, determine to a large extent the direction and content of courses within the various streams of our teacher education program, including the undergraduate field experiences and graduate level internships. In fall of 2012, the incoming provincial government divided the MELS into two distinct ministries: the MELS remained responsible for elementary (grades 1-6) and secondary (grades 7-11) education; and the newly created Ministère d’Enseignement Supérieur, Recherche, Science et Technologie (MESRST)3 is responsible for post-secondary education. As teacher education programs in Quebec are offered at the university level, these programs now fall under the jurisdiction of the newly formed MESRT. However as the MELS is still responsible for teacher certification (as it pertains to elementary and secondary schools), upon completion of an accredited teacher education program, candidates are recommended by the university to the MELS for teacher certification. Until recently the only path to teacher certification in Quebec was through a 120-credit, 4 year Bachelor of Education program. While we have long been committed to the idea that a post- bachelor path to teacher certification would better serve the needs and situations of certain candidates, it is only recently (since 2010), mainly in response to teacher shortages in key areas such as Math and Science, that the MELS sanctioned the development of a 60-credit Master’s level teacher education program leading to teacher certification. McGill’s resulting Master of Arts in Teaching and Learning (MATL) is offered unrestricted for allowable subject areas and for certification at the secondary school level and can be completed over a period from 15 months to 5 years (Riches, http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mels.gouv.qc.ca%2F&ei=NxZXUv_ONcTuyAH6z4CIDg&usg=AFQjCNHB0Y71JfKlLX07ws0GVWIrfdQbRQ&bvm=bv.53899372,d.aWc http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mels.gouv.qc.ca%2F&ei=NxZXUv_ONcTuyAH6z4CIDg&usg=AFQjCNHB0Y71JfKlLX07ws0GVWIrfdQbRQ&bvm=bv.53899372,d.aWc 10 Global Education Review 1(3) Benson & Wood, 2013). The length and entry points of the ministry mandated programs provide the structure within which we are obliged to operate. As professional programs, those programs leading to teacher certification are also overseen by an arms-length committee of the MELS – the Comité d’agrément des programmes de formation à l’enseignement (CAPFE)4. CAPFE’s mandate is to monitor Quebec’s teacher education programs and to recommend accreditation of programs to the MELS (in this capacity, it answers to the MELS with consultation requirements with the MESRST). CAPFE’s main concerns with respect to the design and content of teacher certification, which university programs need to embody in order to be recommended for accreditation, are: 1) evidence of the effective development and assessment of the MELS mandated 12 exit professional competencies in courses, field experiences and internships; 2) implementation of l’approche programme (integrated program approach and program to field links) at all levels; 3) positive and effective partnership with the field; and 4) appropriate preparation for the teaching of the QEP. Internal Governance Situated within university structures, teacher education programs benefit from the governance, administration and academic structure provided by the institution. At McGill, a number of internal governance issues affect (or constrain) change in teacher education. The approval process for course and program change consists of approximately six or seven levels. For administrative purposes, course scheduling that includes field experiences and internships needs to be submitted at least a year in advance. This means that planning for change needs to be deliberate and with a view to the future. Functioning within this structure often entails reconciling competing priorities. For example, while matching admissions numbers with available field placements and with potential employment possibilities are priorities for program administration, admissions quotas at the university level are tied to budgetary considerations and constraints and cannot necessarily be adjusted. Stakeholders in Teacher Education Feedback Feedback from our student teachers, faculty and course instructors, university field supervisors, cooperating teachers, school administrators and graduates is key to gauging the effectiveness of our teacher education programs (Benson & Riches, 2006; Riches & Benson, 2011a). Feedback is gathered in different ways such as Town Hall meetings, departmental retreats, informal workshops, surveys, questionnaires and online anecdotal feedback forms whereby student teachers can comment on their program and field-based experiences. Such feedback has proven to be a rich source of suggestions, ideas and momentum for innovation and change. Running pilot initiatives also enables the enactment and gathering of data on field-based change more rapidly while respecting lengthy university internal governance structures. There are other important benefits that accrue when running pilot initiatives such as the potential such initiatives have to effect some immediate change and provide evidence with which to argue for program-side change. Pilots also allow for a rapid response to suggestions from the field in a way that strategically supports that crucial partnership (Benson & Riches, 2010). Capacity and state of the field The reality of what the field can bear also precipitates change in teacher education, though the institutional response often lags far behind what is ideal as mentioned above with respect to admissions/enrolment quotas. Declining enrolment in Quebec’s English schools (Bourhis & Foucher, 2012), means that finding sufficient student teaching placements is an ongoing A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 11 challenge. Further to this, French immersion programming in Quebec is ever increasing, thus requiring that our student teachers be able to demonstrate oral and written French language competency at the Kindergarten/Elementary levels while those student teachers in the secondary program are being asked to teach certain subjects entirely in French. In Montreal area school boards, for example, almost 90% of schools are French immersion schools (from Early French Immersion to Bilingual programs). Currently pre-service teachers are asked to self- report whether or not they are comfortable teaching in French (approximately 35% respond ‘yes’) in order to secure sufficient student teaching placements. Administrative Perspective Resistance to change in the field of education has been well-documented (Starr, 2011). School administrators’ roles and managerial responsibilities have grown in complexity as they are tasked with implementing frequent educational reforms at the curriculum level as well as responding to the external demands such as the teacher training partnership. In this climate, the strategy of the OST has been to design field-based experiences that are increasingly sensitive to the school’s needs while also meeting our accreditation requirements. These changes are then piloted and implemented incrementally, term by term, using the familiar faces of field supervisors to support buy-in at the school and teacher level. We have learned that all changes create a degree of resistance, and this will not diminish in the future. What makes our ongoing partnership possible is our solicitation of constant feedback that is acted upon and quickly implemented in the next iteration of the field experience and internship. There is an irony at play here – as the next iteration cannot help but present yet more changes to the way that we, and our partners in the field, accomplish our work. Universities are not exempt from resistance to change; and the effort required to adapt administrative and technological processes to field changes must also be taken into account when practice teaching models are evolved. As an example, a decision to fast-track the movement of a field experience from September to November might, at first glance, be considered a fairly simple process of making adjustments to the university calendar – which is online and dynamic. The reality however, is quite a different matter. University course dates are normally fixed up to 2 years in advance, so that applying yearly iterative and responsive changes to the dates of field experiences and internships requires sophisticated administrative skill and the time to work within the university’s formal and informal organizational systems. The introduction of a new assessment form to review a lesson plan is another example of a process that involves much collaboration between university service points. This is a form that must be completed and given to a student well in advance of the actual observation of them teaching a lesson. This prompted the creation of fillable online .pdf forms, and required additional training and support materials for the OST staff, field supervisors, school administrators and cooperating teachers in their use. Change also presents challenges to resources already stretched thin. An upcoming change to the MATL is one such example. Previously, both undergraduate and graduate final practica took place in the winter term. As of winter 2015, MATL student teachers will be completing their initial internship, while undergraduates will be completing their 4th and final field experience. In a secondary school, with student teachers from both programs, the avoidance of unwarranted, unrealistic and potentially unfavorable comparison is essential. In addition, new and different processes will require, as they always do, administrative innovation, flexibility, and careful oversight in 12 Global Education Review 1(3) order to assure compliance with university regulations and to maintain program standards. The key to successful adoption of change, as in the previous examples, will rely in part, on our ability to manage large and important communication projects while making every effort to minimize and manage any resultant stress this might cause in the program and the field. While these examples point to the administrative complexity of implementing changes in the field, the alternative, status quo and lack of response to changing reality in schools would be more detrimental to our ability to graduate effective novice teachers. Our positive experiences in embracing changes and working to create new administrative processes to support them has benefited the organizational culture of the OST, as well as empowering staff to take an active role in identifying process improvements. Scholarship and Research in Teacher Education Scholarship and research in teacher education provides a framework within which to respond to changes driven by the factors discussed above, and a framework in which to imagine and go beyond what exists. Concurrent to those initiatives to gather feedback involving our various stakeholders, we were mandated by the Ministry of Education to conduct program reviews across the university. In completing the review for our B.Ed. programs, input was gathered from the course instructors, representative students from each program, student advisors, and program directors through responses to a set of directed questions. Input was also gathered directly from the B.Ed. programs student body. Finally, an external review of our B.Ed. programs was conducted by two experts in the field of teacher education. This initiative was the subject of an article published by Riches and Benson (2011a). With a view to strengthening the research foundation upon which its teacher education programs are constructed, in 2009 the Faculty of Education engaged in an extensive research initiative. This work, entitled the Undergraduate Program Re- Visioning (UPR) was overseen by the Office of the Dean of Education and comprised, over 12 months, an in-depth review of current literature on Teacher Education programs (TEPs) across North America. Among the recommendations emanating from a comprehensive report issued in 2010, those of particular and ongoing resonance to the field- based elements of our programs are: • Program to field coherence and consistency • Cohort model • Supported and integrated field experiences • Sustained partnerships with local schools • Coherent competency based standards of assessment across the program Evolution in teacher education has been the focus of attention in faculties of education across Canada and around the world for many decades as attempts are made to reconcile what is possible within university contexts with the ever-growing needs of a constantly changing educational milieu (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 2006; National Research Council, 2010; Zeichner, 2010; Zeichner & Conklin, 2008). Seminal volumes have reported on models of excellence in teacher education (Beck & Kosnik, 2006; Cochran‐Smith, Feiman‐Nemser, & McIntyre, (Eds.), & Demers, (Assoc. Ed.), 2008; Cochran- Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2006) which often echo our feedback from the field, and support initiatives such as cohort structures and theory to practices links through deliberate and concurrent courses and field/internship experiences. There is now a strong sense that teacher preparation must A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 13 provide, along with content and pedagogical knowledge, opportunity for student teachers to examine their beliefs about learning, to consider the social and psychological impacts of their chosen profession, and to develop their beginning teacher identities as role models and interpreters of the educational agenda. While there is no consensus on how this might best be accomplished within the confines of teacher education, the role of reflection in the preparation of teachers is one approach that has been closely examined and heavily documented (Korthagen, 2004; Schöen, 1983). In 2006 the Conseil supérieur de l’éducation du Québec (Quebec Superior Educational Council) published a document outlining the positive effects of reflective practitioner enquiry. This document includes a recommendation that teacher education programmes encourage future teachers to become aware of the importance of research on their practice (Conseil supérieur de l’éducation, 2006). This goal of developing reflective practitioners (Marcos, Sanchez, & Tillema, 2011) is infused in courses across our teacher education programs, and we have adopted a variety of ways, such as the inclusion of reflective journals, portfolios and collaborative action research projects (Kalmbach Phillips & Carr, 2006; Mitchell, Reilly, & Logue, 2009) to encourage the practice of critical reflection among our student teachers. This emphasis on reflective practice is also a cornerstone of how the models of assessment of our undergraduate program field experiences and graduate program internships have been developed. The Office of Student Teaching The Office of Student Teaching is an independent unit of the Faculty of Education, and is responsible for the planning and implementation of effective field experiences and internships in teacher education, and approaching schools and school boards for the placement of student teachers. Structurally, the Office is headed by an academic director, who is responsible for pedagogical design and leadership of the field component of teacher education, as well as counselling students, making final grade decisions and enforcing the code of ethics for student teachers as required. The director is supported by an administrator, who is responsible for the implementation of program changes and special initiatives, and who supervises the work of three placement coordinators. The placement coordinators make and coordinate requests with school administrators, and communicate with students regularly regarding their field experiences and internships. The majority of students are placed in partner school boards or private schools in the Greater Montreal area; all accredited elementary and secondary schools are eligible to receive student teachers. With the exception of Teaching English as a Second Language specialists, who are placed in French schools, students are placed in schools in the English school boards, which offer both English education and French immersion or bilingual programs. A pool of over 100 field supervisors work off-site mentoring and assessing student teachers in their assigned classrooms. Primarily retired school administrators and master teachers with substantial practical experience in mentoring pre-service teachers, the field supervisors are hired, trained and supervised by the director and administrator. Field supervisors play a critical role in supporting and coaching cooperating teachers in their role as mentors, and in communicating program changes and gathering feedback from the field. The Office of Student Teaching is responsible for securing school placements for the four undergraduate field experiences and two graduate internships. Twenty-five B.Ed. Field Experience and four Internship course sections were offered in 2012-13. • 1340 undergraduate student teachers were placed 14 Global Education Review 1(3) • 82 MATL student teachers were placed • 961 cooperating teachers hosted the student teachers • 109 field supervisors supervised the student teachers • 286 Quebec public and private schools welcomed student teachers • 73 students participated in special opportunities or other initiatives promoted by the Office of Student Teaching Among the special opportunity placements available to student teachers in their final field experience are: • First Nations Community placements • Distance and international placements in Hong Kong, China, Turks & Caicos, Dominican Republic Student Teaching Student teaching is not a haphazard experience but is carefully structured and managed across our undergraduate and MATL programs in order to develop the 12 exit Professional Competencies as mandated by the MELS (see Appendix A). It occurs concurrently with course work, including academics, professional seminars and methods courses in such a way that as course content becomes more advanced and sophisticated so too does the carefully scaffolded design of graduated student teaching responsibility in the field. Student teachers must show evidence of mastery of all 12 exit professional competencies by the end of their teacher preparation program in order to be recommended to the MELS for teacher certification. This professional growth must be appropriately captured, supported, documented and responded to in the field – where theory meets practice under the watchful guidance and expert stewardship of cooperating teachers, field supervisors and school administrators. Cooperating teachers and field supervisors share in the critical task of assessing the degree of accomplishment of a student teacher’s development of the 12 exit professional competencies and his/her readiness to proceed to the next field experience or, in the case of the final field experience, enter the profession as a novice teacher and future colleague. To this end, an evolved model of competency-based assessment and the sequencing of the assessment forms have been so designed as to enable professional conversations of greater focus and clarity between cooperating teachers, field supervisors and student teachers – thus leading to increased precision and rigor around what counts as evidence of successful attainment of the required level of mastery of student teaching exit professional competencies. Sequence of Undergraduate Field Experiences and MATL Internships In the 4-year undergraduate B.Ed. Program, student teachers do a minimum of 25 weeks (Kindergarten and Elementary, Secondary, Teaching English as a Second Language, Specialist Areas) or 20 weeks (Physical Education, Teaching French as a Second Language) of field experience over the course of 4 field experiences, and experience a minimum of 3 different teaching contexts in host schools (public, private, alternative, community-service learning, distance and international field experience (4th undergraduate field experience and 2nd MATL internship only]). A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 15 In the 2-year (5 to 7 consecutive semesters) graduate M.A. Teaching and Learning Program (MATL) student teachers complete a minimum of 21 weeks of internship over the course of 2 field placements. The MATL program leads to teacher certification at the secondary level in one of the following QEP curriculum subjects: English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science and Technology, English as a Second Language, or Social Sciences (History, Geography, Ethics). This program was designed and developed to address the evolving needs of the professional education milieu in Quebec, and in particular in response to the MELS’ request that Quebec universities propose an accredited post-degree program leading to teacher certification for currently employed but uncertified teachers. (Office of the Associate Dean, 2010) In 2011, the employment restriction was lifted, and students with a previous degree in a teachable subject but with no work experience as a classroom teacher were admitted to the program. This new clientele necessitated the development of a flexible approach to the first internship; to allow students with no classroom teaching experience to gradually acclimatize to the culture and community of Quebec schools, while still attaining the same level of development of the professional competencies by the end of the degree program. FIELD EXPERIENCE 1 •12 days over 3 wks •late November •Cohort model •4 days in school •1 day at XXXX for professional seminar FIELD EXPERIENCE 2 •15 days over 3 wks •late April to early May •Can choose alternative schools •Concurrent professional seminar in evening FIELD EXPERIENCE 3 •64 days over 16 wks •end of August to early December •4 days in school •1 day at XXXX for concurrent seminar and courses FIELD EXPERIENCE 4 •35 days over 7 weeks •mid-February to mid-April •Courses and seminar wrap around the FE •Students permitted to do FE outside Montreal or internationally, alternative schools INTERNSHIP 1 •Fall term •Weekly evening professional seminar •Initial 2-week observation period for students placed with a cooperating teacher •10 weeks/350 hours of teaching INTERNSHIP 2 •Winter term •Weekly evening professional seminar •cooperating teacher •10 weeks/350 hours of teaching B.Ed Field Experience Progression 2012-13 MA Teaching and Learning Internship Progression 2012-13 16 Global Education Review 1(3) The following section (1) shows snapshots of former models of each of the undergraduate Field Experiences 1 through 4, (2) introduces the current competency-based assessment model along with a brief explanation of those tools common to all field experiences (with the exception of Field Experience 1) and graduate internships, (3), presents current models of each of the undergraduate Field Experiences 1 through 4 and graduate internships with changes signaled, (4) explains approaches and tools specific to each field experience and internship and (5) summarizes key innovations. Undergraduate Field Experiences: “Former Models (2004-2009) Until 2009 the majority of student teachers in Field Experience 1 were placed, in pairs, with a single cooperating teacher. They spent the entire 2-week experience observing this teacher’s classroom practice, with very little, if any, exposure to other teachers, classrooms or dimensions of their host school. Student teachers were assigned a field supervisor who was available to support the cooperating teacher, but who did not perform detailed assessments or observations of the student in the classroom setting. There was a single formative assessment form completed by the cooperating teacher at the end of the field experience. First Field Experience (FE1) B.Ed K/Elem, Sec, TESL, Music 2 weeks Students paired September Other courses paused B.Ed TFSL All students complete FE 1 at UdeM 1 week, Fall B.Ed Phys. Ed 15 days/3 wks April/May Students paired A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 17 Second Field Experience (FE2) In this former field experience model, the student teachers were assigned to a classroom teacher for four consecutive weeks. With the help of the classroom teacher, they would plan and implement whole class teaching, beginning with team-teaching and gradually taking on 40 to 50% of the teaching workload. Scheduled in the spring (April-May), the goals of this field experience often conflicted with periods of standardized testing or review of material in schools, leading to difficulty in attaining the required percentage of teaching. The field experience was assessed formatively and summatively by the cooperating teacher, and the field supervisor made one informal visit and one formative assessment visit. B.Ed K/Elem, Sec, TESL, Music 20 days/4 wks April/May Professional seminar TESL only (evenings during FE) B.Ed TFSL All students complete FE 2 at XXXX 15 days/ 3 wks April/May B.Ed Phys. Ed 15 days/3 wks April/May Students paired 18 Global Education Review 1(3) Third Field Experience (FE3 In this model, student teachers were assigned to a cooperating teacher for seven consecutive weeks. By the end of this field experience, student teachers should have attained about 75% of a full teaching workload. Scheduled from mid-October through November, student teachers were required to quickly take on a high workload percentage, sometimes without gaining sufficient prior teaching and lesson planning time in FE 2. Additionally, students did not experience important milestones of the teaching year: classroom preparation before the students arrive, first day of school, parent-teacher interviews in late fall, or the preparation and distribution of report cards. The cooperating teacher completed two formative assessments and a summative assessment, and the supervisor made one introductory visit and two formative assessments. B.Ed K/Elem, Sec, TESL, Music 35 days/7 wks Oct/Dec Intensive courses completed before FE (evening seminar continues TESL only) B.Ed TFSL 35 days/7 wks Oct/Dec Intensive courses completed before FE; evening seminar continues B.Ed Phys. Ed 35 days/7 wks Oct/Dec Intensive courses completed before FE A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 19 Fourth Field Experience (FE4) In this, the final field experience in the program, the student teacher was assigned to a cooperating teacher for seven consecutive weeks. As soon as the cooperating teacher judged that the student teacher was ready, the student teacher took responsibility for the selection, planning and implementation of the teacher’s full workload. As in the third field experience, the cooperating teacher completed two formative assessments and a summative assessment, and the supervisor made one introductory visit and two formative assessments. The New Competency-Based Assessment Model In 2009-2011, the Office of Student Teaching launched this new model of competency-based assessment. Assessment was redesigned to allow for differentiated competency development across the four field experiences and two internships in a manner synchronous to course work (and competency development) in the program. Along with redesigned forms, communication materials, visit structures and criteria for said visits, a critical tool in this new model is the “Guide to Professional Competency Development” (Appendix B) delineating in accessible terms what evidence of competency attainment looks like in practice appropriate to each level of field experience 1 through 4 and internship 1 and 2. This evolved competency-based assessment model makes evaluating a student teacher’s progress more responsive to, and reflective of, the MELS Professional Competencies (Government of Quebec, 2001). While in certain ways the competency-based assessment model resembles its predecessor, it differs in significant ways. It is a more thoughtful process of assessment and one that B.Ed K/Elem, Sec, TESL, Music 35 days/7 wks Feb to April Intensive courses completed before FE (evening seminar contiues TESL only) B.Ed TFSL 45 days/9 wks Feb to April Intensive courses completed before FE; evening seminar continues B.Ed Phys. Ed 35 days/7 wks Feb to April Intensive courses completed before FE 20 Global Education Review 1(3) can help make explicit what is often implied in the dialogic exchange between student teacher and cooperating teacher and/or field supervisor. It is a more robust process that benefits all parties and adds value to that already critical professional relationship that is integral to field experience. Eventually of course, the most important individuals of all – the students in our schools, have the most to gain from innovations and refinements to the field component of student teacher preparation. The competency-based model was informed by best practices, and tools were designed in a consultative and collaborative manner with input from cooperating teachers, school administrators, field supervisors and student teachers. Members from these constituencies were invited to complete a questionnaire on the model at the end of the field experience in which they participated, “I found the information very clear and. . .more helpful in my evaluations than in previous years—the detail and explanation was very welcome.” (3rd field experience cooperating teacher, fall 2011), “It was excellent in that the evaluation form closely followed the expectations outlined by the ministry” (3rd field experience field supervisor). Such salient feedback has informed improvement to the competency-based assessment models and tools for every field experience. In each Field Experience, cooperating teachers and field supervisors are provided with the following competency-based reference materials. • Description of tools: Instructions for using the assessment forms specific to each field experience. • Field Experience guidelines: Includes assessment schedule for Cooperating Teachers and Field Supervisors on left, as well as a suggested weekly progression of tasks for the student teacher. Contact information for the Office of Student Teaching, Rules and Policies for Student Teaching are found on the back page. • Guide to Professional Competency Development in Field Experience: Details target competencies and relevant features for the relevant field experience. Includes examples of how the student teacher may demonstrate development of these features, differentiated as appropriate to the field experience year in the B.Ed. program. • Professional Competencies Rubric: For use with all forms to assess the student teacher on their evidence of competency attainment based on the MELS scale from minimal (1) to advanced (5), as appropriate to the student teacher’s year in the B.Ed. program. A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 21 Example Assessment Model (Field Experience 3) Tools common to all field experiences (with the exception of Field Experience 1) are discussed below; please see individual Field Experience sections for forms unique to each level. Formative Assessment Forms This is a three-part process focused on the observation of one lesson. Supervisors and cooperating teachers observe and assess different lessons, with the exception of the 2nd (FE 4) or 3rd (FE 3) formative, which is collaborative, strengthening the team-based approach to mentoring and the links between the university and the field. 1. Pre-Observation Conference The evaluator (cooperating teacher, field supervisor or school administrator [MATL]) reviews the lesson plan submitted in advance by the student teacher, and records written feedback, including comments and suggestions before the lesson is implemented and assessed. This is returned and discussed with the student teacher prior to the lesson. The student may choose to make adjustments to the lesson. 2. Observation Assessment Form 1. Pre- Observation (Review of Lesson Plan) 2. Observation Form (Grid to complete based on observing targeted lesson) 3. Post-Observation Conference (Anecdotal comments based on lesson) Interim Report (Global progress outside of specific lessons) Summative Report (Development of target competencies) The 3-part Formative assessment of a lesson is completed 7 times in FE 3 at regular intervals: Field supervisor: weeks 4, 7, 12 Cooperating teacher: weeks 4, 7, 12 Jointly by both mentors: week 10 The field supervisor and cooperating teacher each complete an interim assessment at the mid- point of the field experience (week ) The field supervisor and cooperating teacher each complete a summative assessment in the final week, based on the formative and interim assessments. 22 Global Education Review 1(3) Completed while (or shortly after) observing the student teacher teaching the lesson reviewed in the pre-observation conference form. One observable aspect of the target competency is evaluated per line using the 1-5 competency scale. (Please see rubric, available in Appendix C) For example, in the domain “Foundations (Professional Competencies 1 & 2)” the evaluator assesses whether the student teacher “Is aware of current events and makes connections to curriculum”. 3. Post-Observation Conference Form Completed after the lesson, and used to indicate suggestions and capture discussion with the student teacher stemming from the “Observation Assessment Form”. Evaluators provide written feedback that will enable the student teacher to understand concretely how to go about improving his/her practice and develop as an effective professional. Interim Report Form (Field Experience 3 & 4) First introduced in FE 4, winter 2012, and then implemented in FE 3, fall 2012, the interim report is a global assessment of the development of competencies not explicitly addressed in the formative lesson observation assessments; collaboration with the school team, participation in school activities, response to feedback, progression of work on the professional portfolio. Space is provided for comments on the student’s development of competencies across the four domains. Summative Assessment Form Assessment of learning takes place in the final week of field experience. Prior to 2009, summative assessment was completed by the cooperating teacher only; the form did not reference the professional competencies, and was identical for field experiences 2, 3 and 4. The cooperating teacher and field supervisor now each complete a summative form; each of the targeted competencies is evaluated on the provided 1-5 scale from minimal to advanced. All forms are submitted to the Office of Student Teaching and individually reviewed. Students with weak performance meet with the OST Director for remedial suggestions. Notification of Concern (NOC) Form This form, piloted in 2006 and introduced in 2007, has since been widely and successfully used across all field experiences. It is a tool that enables Supervisors or Cooperating Teachers/School Administrators to signal concern about a student’s pedagogical and/or professional development during Field Experience. The form clearly articulates the concern(s) and explains clear strategies for improvement and a timeline by which said improvement must be seen and sustained. This procedure allows important communication to be shared in a timely and concrete manner – and gives the student teacher time to correct concerns before they become more serious. The OST Director is notified of an imminent NOC, is available to advise on its composition, and meets with every student who has been issued an NOC. Feedback form (General) This form is available should student teachers, cooperating teachers or field supervisors wish to provide feedback on their field experience. This feedback is intended to serve three purposes: • provides the OST with a general assessment of the field experience in question. A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 23 • enables a vehicle to comment on and make suggestions concerning specific aspects of the field experience. • provides an opportunity to comment more generally on the ways in which the OST might continue to develop the student teaching component of the McGill teacher education program. Feedback Form (student teacher’s comments concerning supervision) This form (not mandatory) enables student teachers to provide a general assessment of their field supervisor. Feedback may be anonymously shared with the supervisor at the end of the academic year, to allow them to engage in their own process of reflective analysis. In field experiences and internships (and associated in-program courses), student teachers engage in critical reflection and self- evaluation by evaluating their mastery of the competencies using “Self-Evaluation Competency Grids” (see Appendix D) and a “Yearly Competency Review” (see Appendix E). Students chart their development of the professional competencies throughout the program, adding to them after each field experience and internship is completed. Each student's professional development is synthesized and written up in an “Action Plan” (see Appendix F) and shared with cooperating teacher(s) and field supervisor during subsequent field experiences and internships. Students are responsible for keeping the competency grids, yearly overview and action plan in their working professional portfolio. Undergraduate Field Experiences: Current Models (2009-2013) First Field Experience - Cohort Model See Appendix H for assessment schedule and Forms. B.Ed K/Elem, Sec, TESL 12 days/3 wks Cohort model Nov/Dec 4 days in school, 1 day at XXXX for seminar B.Ed Sec (Sci/ Math), Music 10 days/2 wks Cohort model Evening seminar B.Ed TFSL All students complete FE 1 at UdeM 1 week, Fall Admissions closed, not offered for 2012- 13 B.Ed Phys. Ed 15 days/3 wks April/May Students paired 24 Global Education Review 1(3) Based on successful outcomes from a funded pilot project successfully undertaken in 2009-10, all students in the B.Ed. Kindergarten and Elementary, Secondary, Teaching English as a Second Language and Music Programs are now placed in host schools in cohort groupings for Field Experience 1. In this 12 day field experience (Monday to Thursday, late November to early December, Friday back at McGill for related courses), participating schools receive cohorts of between 10 -15 students. Student teachers are immersed in the culture and community of the host school, and, in small groups, shadow many teachers and school professionals across cycles and subject areas for 8 days, and are then assigned a cooperating teacher for the final 4 days. Field supervisors meet with their students individually and with the entire student cohort at least twice, fostering a community of practice. School administrators, teachers, cooperating teachers and field supervisors gain a more holistic sense of a student teacher’s suitability and readiness for a program of teacher preparation, as does the student teacher. Student teachers are provided opportunities to encounter school experiences that encompass the full range of teaching and learning tasks (in class, resource, admin office, informal school activities and events) that make up the educational experiences of a community of diverse learners. This field experience maximizes early and critical professional development opportunities/insights for student teachers and allows them to experience a broader, richer learning experience than they might when being mentored by a single cooperating teacher. Sections of the student teacher’s working professional portfolio (see Appendix G) are informed by this field experience as they complete reflective self- observation assessment grids on their development of the selected professional competencies (see Appendix D) and write up an Action Plan (see Appendix F). Field Experience 1 cohort model contributes to school success by • Affirming influence of highly motivated student teachers on entire school population. • Enabling greater numbers of school staff to engage and work with student teachers. • Strengthening feelings of professional wellbeing among school staff. • Encouraging insight and reflection among school staff. • Underlining the place, purpose and importance of on-site knowledge to program/course development. • Providing students in host schools (including those at risk of dropping-out) the opportunity to spend time with motivated, young student teachers embarking on post- secondary education, and to see modeled the hard work, determination and hope they bring to this pursuit. • Cohort model encourages student teachers to reach out to disenfranchised youth in positive, caring ways, even if only for short periods of time – and to gain early important knowledge about “Resource” and drop-out prevention programs in schools. A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 25 • Accessing the energy and help of student teachers across multiple school initiatives. In 2013, in response to field supervisor and cooperating teacher feedback on the ‘1-5’ assessment ranking, a new scale will be implemented, and the FE 1 assessment form simplified. During this short, observational field experience, students’ competency development will be assessed as either “Satisfactory”, “Developing”, or “Undeveloped” (See Appendix C). We will solicit further feedback from the field in order to make any necessary adjustments to this new scale, with the goal of implementing it on the Interim report in field experiences 3 and 4. An important trend in field experience model changes is the increased role of the supervisor in the mentorship and assessment relationship, particularly in the first two undergraduate field experiences. From one short informal visit in 2004, supervisors are now present with the student teachers for four days over the course of FE 1. Additionally, their role in working with the school administrator to create the schedule strengthens the partnership relationship which supports our ability to initiate further changes. Second Field Experience (FE2) See Appendix I for assessment schedule and forms. B.Ed K/Elem, Sec, TESL, Music 15 days/3 wks April/May Evening seminar during FE Can choose alternative schools B.Ed TFSL All students complete FE 2 at XXXX 15 days/3 wks April Admissions closed; not offered in 2012/13 B.Ed Phys. Ed 15 days/3 wks April/May Students paired 26 Global Education Review 1(3) This 15 day Field Experience offers opportunities for the student teacher to work with small groups of students in formal and informal contexts. The student teacher will plan a lesson collaboratively with the cooperating teacher and teach all, or part of, that lesson. Orbits of inquiry during FE2 are based on developing selected professional and subject- specific competencies that include student engagement and learning, classroom management and the “Working Professional Portfolio”. Related professional development goals are: a deeper understanding of student learning in small and larger groups, appreciation of the process of effective lesson planning and implementation, awareness of professionalism in formal and informal learning contexts, and meaningful portfolio development as it relates to professional growth, insight and confidence. The decrease in teaching workload from a maximum of 50% to only collaborative planning and teaching of small groups is adapted to the reality of schools in the spring term; as special projects, review sessions or exam preparation are taking place. This change was made possible by the structure of the lengthened third field experience, during which student teachers are able to gradually work up to independent lesson planning and teaching over a 16-week period. Third Field Experience (FE3) See Appendix J for Assessment schedule and forms. B.Ed K/Elem, Sec, TESL, Music 64 days/16 wks Aug/Dec 4 days in school, 1 day at XXXX for seminar and courses B.Ed TFSL 35 days/7 wks Oct/Dec Intensive courses completed before FE; evening seminar continues B.Ed Phys. Ed 35 days/7 wks Oct/Dec Intensive courses completed before FE A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 27 After 2 years of planning, consulting and designing, and a successful pilots in 2006 and 2007 (We are Listening! Shoulder to Shoulder with Teachers) the Field Experience 3 Merged Model has been program-wide since 2010 (with the exception of Physical and Health Education due to program architecture). The design and structure of Field Experience 3 is such that all placements are secured in mainstream classrooms. No alternative or distance placements are allowed for Field Experience 3 given the nature of the synchronous classes in their program and the importance of students demonstrating requisite competence in a mainstream classroom. Student teachers begin in their host schools on the same day that teachers return to their schools at the end of August, and before the students arrive in early September (student teachers are allowed to return to the same school for Third Field Experience where they undertook their Second Field Experience. This policy was introduced based on feedback from cooperating teachers, some of whom expressed reticence at committing to mentor an unfamiliar student teacher before the complexity of their own teaching workload assignments was known). During this extended Third Field Experience, student teachers experience the stages of planning and preparation that teachers engage in for a new school year, and benefit from, among many experiences, that singular “first day of school.” Student teachers remain in their host schools until early December. Student teachers are able to integrate more fully into the culture and community of the school, be viewed as junior teachers, gain a greater insight and appreciation for the cycle of learning of their students and their own professional development, and gain a truer appreciation of the demands of the profession. By the end of this field experience student teachers should be undertaking from 60% to 75% of a full teaching load. Student teachers in the elementary program spend Tuesday through Friday in their host schools, returning to the university for associated courses on Monday. Secondary student teachers spend Monday through Thursday in their host schools, returning to the university for associated courses on Friday. Student teachers are kept in cohort groups in their in-program courses. Course assignments are directly linked to field-based work and are designed to ensure, as one outcome among many, that the student teachers address, in a manner appropriate to the field experience/program level, the full spectrum of the Ministry of Education mandated exit professional competencies. These substantive connections better enable students to enact and internalize the range of theoretical ideas encountered in their program through authentic classroom performance. An additional benefit to this model (as borne out by our research) is that a prolonged field experience, explicitly linking theory and practice, results in novice teachers suffering less transition shock, requiring less early mentoring, and being better able to thrive in today’s challenging classroom environments (Benson & Riches, 2006). 28 Global Education Review 1(3) Fourth Field Experience (FE4) See Appendix K for Assessment schedule and forms. Student teachers are assigned to a school for 7 weeks. Student teachers are expected to be in the final stages of attaining mastery of the 12 teaching professional competencies and will continue to develop their professional portfolio. By week 4, student teachers should be responsible for 85% to 100% of a full teaching load. Post-summative assessment, the cooperating teacher and the field supervisor meet with the student teacher to engage in a professional conversation geared to novice teaching, that is designed to be a frank sharing of perceptions, insights and ideas between teachers with varying levels of experience and perhaps differing ideologies. Integral to the success of this conversation is the complete absence of any sort of judgmental or evaluative presence/ethos around this conversation. MATL Internship: Development and Current Model Internship 1 This is the first of two MATL internships; comprising 12 weeks in a school; an initial observation period of two weeks, and ten weeks of teaching. For student teachers not employed in their own classrooms, the cooperating teacher B.Ed K/Elem, Sec, TESL, Music 35 days/7 wks Feb/April Courses and seminar wrap around FE (evening seminar continues TESL only) Alternative schools,, special or distant placement opportunites B.Ed TFSL 45 days/9 wks Oct/Dec Intensive courses completed before FE; evening seminar continues Alternative schools,, special or distant placement opportunites B.Ed Phys. Ed 35 days/7 wks Oct/Dec Intensive courses completed before FE Alternative schools,, special or distant placement opportunites A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 29 will provide written formative assessments as will the McGill supervisor according to the schedule below. Student teachers on contract complete only the ten week teaching period, and will be assessed by the supervisor and the school administrator, or a teacher they choose to delegate as mentor. At the end of the initial observation period (two weeks), the cooperating teacher and supervisor will assess the student teacher’s readiness to begin gradually assuming teaching responsibility. By the mid-point of the internship, all MATL student teachers will be responsible, with the support of the cooperating teacher or mentor, for a minimum of 80% of the teaching workload. Student teachers will develop all 12 Professional Competencies, and are responsible for preparing plans for all lessons or units they are assigned to teach. Guidance during Internship 1 will be provided by the cooperating teacher or mentor and the supervisor, particularly in the areas of differentiation, classroom management, and assessment, which are addressed in greater depth prior to Internship 2. See Appendix L for Assessment schedule and forms. •240 hours (7 weeks if full-time) •2-credit evening seminar •Hours can be divided across Fall and Winter terms as necessary Internship 1 2010: All Students Employed as Teachers •70 hours (2 weeks) of observation only before proceeding to teaching •350 hours (10 weeks) teaching •Fall semester (2nd term of program) Internship 1 2013: A. Students with Cooperating Teacher •350 hours (10 weeks if full-time) •2-credit evening seminar •All hours must be completed in the Fall semester (2nd term of program) Internship 1 2013: B. Students Employed as Teachers •70 hours (2 weeks) of observation only before proceeding to teaching •350 hours (10 weeks) teaching •Winter semester (3rd term of program) Internship 1 2015: A. Students with Cooperating Teacher •350 hours (10 weeks if full-time) •2-credit evening seminar •All hours must be completed in the Winter semester (3rd term of program) Internship 1 2015: B. Students Employed as Teachers 30 Global Education Review 1(3) The models above represent an iterative process beginning in 2010-11 of development based on feedback from field partners (school administrators, cooperating teachers) as well as field supervisors and students. For those students accepted into the MATL program with little or no prior teaching experience, we quickly realized, from feedback provided by the host schools and our field supervisors, that these students required additional time in the field before undertaking any teaching responsibilities. We responded by adding two weeks to the first MATL internship for those students no matter their prior teaching experience (for instance international teaching experience or experience teaching adults). This resulted in the need to redesign the model and materials for assessment in order to allow for a more gradual exercising and demonstration of the required exit professional competencies. Internship 2 This is the second of two MATL internships comprising 11 weeks in a school. For those MATL student teachers not on contract, the cooperating teacher will provide written formative assessments as will the McGill supervisor according to the schedule below. Student teachers on contract will be assessed by the supervisor and the school administrator, or a teacher they choose to delegate as mentor. MATL student teachers will be responsible for a minimum of 80% of a full time teaching workload and for developing all 12 Professional Competencies. Guidance during Internship 2 will be provided by the cooperating teacher or school administrator and the supervisor. In addition to the weekly professional seminar, students complete a concurrent applied methods course in their subject area. Methods course instructors may request permission to conduct mentoring visits in the classroom during the internship period. See Appendix M for Assessment schedule and forms. •280 hours (8 weeks) teaching •1 to 3 additional weeks may be added based on progress •2-credit evening seminar •All hours completed in Winter term Internship 2 2012: All students (Employed or with Cooperating Teacher) •385 hours (11 weeks) teaching •1 to 3 additional weeks may be added based on progress •2-credit evening seminar •All hours completed in Winter term Internship 2 2013: All students (Employed or with Cooperating Teacher) •385 hours (11 weeks) teaching •1 to 3 additional weeks may be added based on progress •2-credit evening seminar •All hours completed in final Fall term Internship 2 2016: All students (Employed or with Cooperating Teacher) A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 31 The process of development for Internship 2 has also focused on increased supervised practice teaching time. Because students are eligible for full teaching certification with no probationary period upon completion of this internship and their program courses, supervisors and cooperating teachers have the option of extending field time by 1 to 3 weeks to ensure satisfactory development of the necessary competencies. In 2013, an additional 3 weeks was added for all students. As shown above, a scheduling change for the MA program will be implemented in 2014-15, (moving the first internship from the fall term to the winter term) in response to feedback from the field that students without prior experience require additional courses to prepare for the challenges of student teaching, and that redistributing the required courses over 5 terms will allow students in both streams to invest the necessary time and effort in their program. Indicators of Success There are many and varied indicators that point to the success of the changes brought about to the field-based component of the McGill Faculty of Education teacher education program. These include positive recognition from our accrediting bodies, invitations from other university programs of teacher education in Quebec to present our work, and interest from researchers from national and international universities who come to inquire firsthand into our practices in the field. I shall share indicators of success however, from what I deem to be equally compelling and critical perspectives; the impact of the change initiatives in terms of the support they provide our student teachers in the field, and the positive impact of change to the relations with our partners in the field, without whom we could not do this work. Change That Supports our Student Teachers in the Field Our undergraduate student teachers have a far richer introduction (FE1) to the culture and community of schools. This enables them, much earlier in their program of study, to make informed and realistic choices as to whether this most demanding of professions, teaching, is for them. While it is not easy for a student to decide to leave the program, it is by far less devastating to make that decision in their first, rather than in their third or fourth year in the program. All our student teachers, in both the undergraduate (FE3) and MATL (Internship 1) programs, experience the stages of planning and preparation that teachers engage in for a new school year, and benefit from, among many experiences, that singular ‘first day of school’. Student teachers remain in their host schools for an entire school term and are able to integrate more fully into the culture and community of the school, be viewed as junior teachers, gain a greater insight and appreciation for the cycle of learning of their students and their own professional development and gain a truer appreciation of the demands of the profession. During FE3 and Internship 1, there are synchronous in-program classes at McGill directly tied to the field-based authentic classroom performance. These substantive connections better enable students to enact and internalize the range of theoretical ideas encountered in their program. An additional benefit to this model is that a prolonged field experience, explicitly linking theory and practice, results in novice teachers suffering less transition shock, requiring less early mentoring, and being better able to thrive in today’s challenging classroom environments. Since 2006, the bar has been raised substantially in terms of role-expectation and professional dispositions of field supervisors. These individuals are required to be adaptive 32 Global Education Review 1(3) experts in their commitment to ongoing professional growth as the tools and models with which they work and familiarize the field are by definition dynamic and reflecting of best practices in teacher education. Students now receive more, and better structured visits from their field supervisors, visits that are not solely for assessment, but meant to develop collegial skill and offer the wisdom and support that these dedicated field supervisors are able to proffer. Gone are the days when a field supervisor might wave at a student teacher from the teacher’s lounge and consider that a successful supervisory visit. The reconceptualised models of observation and assessment, supported as they are by guidelines that provide examples of what evidence of mastery of targeted professional competencies looks like in the field, demand that our field supervisors and cooperating teachers are accountable to their student teachers. Assessment must be timely and feedback abundant. That feedback must be written, it must be concrete, and it must align to the exit professional competencies being developed at a level commensurate to the field experience or internship being undertaken. Feedback must also occur within a reasonable period of time after the lesson has been observed – and that professional conversation is never to be rushed or left incomplete. Poor field experience and internship outcomes now cannot come as a shock to a student teacher. The introduction of the Notification of Concern (NOC) asks that concerns, be they professional and/or pedagogical – must be noted, clearly described with examples of the worrying behaviors provided, concrete strategies for improvement provided, and a date by which such improvement must be demonstrated. In surveys run by our undergraduate and graduate governing student bodies, efforts to evolve the field-based component of our program continue to bear fruit as evinced in the data on high rates of student satisfaction with their field experiences and internships. Perhaps most indicative of the success of the work of the OST are the positive reports from the field speaking to the professional readiness and adaptive expertise of our graduates now working in schools. While that is an acknowledgement of the effectiveness of the teacher education program as a whole, the significance of the field- based component to that finding of professional readiness and exemplary practice cannot be understated. Change That Sustains Positive Relations with Our Partners in the Field Student teaching is viewed by the Office of Student Teaching as a collaborative venture between partners. The OST privileges its partnerships in the field with prominence placed on the working relationship with cooperating teachers and those in charge of the student teaching dossier. Since 2006 there has been ever increasing rigor brought to the selection and professional development of cooperating teachers through closer liaison with school administrators and greater expenditure of resources to address articulated needs in the field. Emphasis has been placed on providing professional development in the following areas: assessing the 12 exit professional competencies (using the new models and tools of assessment); differentiating assessment across field experiences and internships; building successful mentoring partnerships; addressing sensitive issues during the mentoring process and, providing effective, concrete and timely feedback. Responsive, innovative professional development for our partners that reflects best practices will continue to be prioritized and the OST will continue to involve cooperating teachers in the work of strengthening the field A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 33 component of McGill’s teacher preparation program. Such efforts and collaboration benefit the field, as evinced in data on cooperating teachers’ satisfaction with the models of student teacher assessment, and the increasing demand from schools and boards for professional development that is seen as proactive, timely, relevant and helpful. Perhaps most telling of all is the constructive tenor and tone of the day-to-day contact between the OST and cooperating teachers, school administrators and school boards – and the incredible generosity and trust that our field partners demonstrate when they willingly offer their schools and students for yet another of our pilot initiatives. Mechanisms and Sample Feedback In order to effectively assess our programs, a variety of mechanisms are in place to gather feedback from all stakeholders on each new initiative. Formal research projects were conducted for the pilots of the merged model third field experience (2006-07) and for the cohort model first field experience (2009), the competency-based assessment model forms were distributed for 4 consecutive terms to all field supervisors and cooperating teachers with an attached survey. The office regularly conducts short polls and questionnaires with teachers, administrators, and field supervisors during professional development days and over email to assess our progress. As well, a form is provided on the OST website to solicit general comments on any aspect of the field experience and internship process. In response to a survey on student experience with the new Merged Model third field experience in 2007, a student teacher commented that the field experience, “. . . Provided me with opportunities that I would not have gained from the regular seven week [field experience]. I was involved in many areas starting from the beginning of the school year such as, setting up the classroom, establishing the stations and centers, planning for the first weeks (and first day) of school, developing routines and resources for the classroom and communicating with the parents. Not only was I able to take part… but I was able to implement them and see the results. … [In university courses on Fridays] we were provided with knowledgeable teachers, who were principals from Montreal school boards. This provided opportunities for my peers and I to ask questions, discourse about our week, including lessons and or problems that may have occurred.” Feedback on the pilot initiative for the Cohort model for first field experience also demonstrates the progress toward our goal of providing a broader and richer initiation to the field for pre-service teachers. A first year student teacher wrote, “Experiencing the many aspects of the culture and community of school allowed me to truly observe the reality of teaching. … I was able to observe different teachers, different group ages, different behaviors, the resources of the school and all the different staff responsibilities and programs of the school. It was truly effective in my understanding of the realities of the profession.” A school administrator noted “it exposes me. . .to the needs of teachers in training. Also, it is an improvement to the training program in 34 Global Education Review 1(3) that…it [requires] FE1 students to reflect on the complexity involved in teaching.” Challenges While there are many challenges to the work of the OST, the following count among our most pressing. Capacity The ever increasing number of student teachers requiring field placements is an ongoing concern. With the introduction, in 2010, of the MATL the much needed resources to support this program did not materialize as anticipated. For reasons already reviewed in this paper, our secondary program enrollment remains the same – thus more than doubling the requirement for places in English secondary schools, this in a rapidly shrinking English language education context in Quebec. English schools are being closed due to the declining numbers of students – and those schools struggling to attract students are offering French immersion and bilingual programs. While Quebec is ostensibly a bilingual province (French is the mandated language of business) many of our local students come to us unwilling to risk being assessed in a French or bilingual field placement – further restricting their access to school placements. Students from out-of-province and international students are also attracted to a teacher education program that certifies them to teach in English. Pressures on Cooperating Teachers Another challenge to securing placements is the eligibility of a teacher to take on a student teacher. In Quebec cooperating teachers must be certified and have taught for five years. The impact of the baby boomer generation is that we have seen a virtual tsunami of teacher retirement. While one positive outcome of this is a slight spike in teaching positions for our graduates, these novice teachers, themselves deserving of early career mentoring, cannot guide a student teacher. It speaks volumes to the trusting partnership that exists between the OST and the field that based on recommendations and additional support from school administrators, we do place student teachers with cooperating teachers with fewer than the requisite five years of teaching experience. Yet another layer of challenge is that mentoring student teachers is not part of the teachers’ collective agreement in Quebec. To already over- burdened and under-resourced teachers, there is no incentive in terms of salary or tenure that comes with being a cooperating teacher. To add to the pressures of being a cooperating teacher, a probationary period for teachers in Quebec was removed in 2008. Cooperating teachers are acutely cognizant of the part they play as gatekeepers of the profession of teaching in terms of upholding its standards and ensuring that only the most effective practitioners join its ranks. Timely Access to English Materials The reality of French being the official language of government in Quebec presents other challenges. It is prohibitively expensive for publishers to print English documents for such a small market – the results being a lacuna of English educative materials being made accessible to our programs in a timely manner. Until just recently, the MELS provided such translations albeit often very late in the day. That funding has been cut and we are now trying to find ways and means to acquire the materials in English that will enable the OST to assure that practice teaching is reflective of current educational thinking and direction in Quebec. Faculty Involvement An additional challenge to the OST’s work is the very small number of faculty that undertakes the supervision of student teachers. This is not A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 35 surprising in academe where service of this sort is often neither valued nor rewarded as highly as research. Most supervision in the field is done by recently retired teachers and school administrators. While there is an obvious benefit to the current knowledge of schools and curricula that those dedicated individuals bring to their role as supervisor, there are clear deficits. One such deficit is that energy is expended having to defend the work of the OST to those in the program and university who simply do not appreciate or understand the field-based component of our program. Troubling too is the covert message given to teacher educators within the faculty to invest time in the important work of doing “real” research rather than supervising student teachers in the field. Funding Accessing funds to provide important professional development to our partners as we introduce new models and materials in the field is a further challenge to the work of the OST. Cooperating teachers or their school administrators or school boards receive a small sum of money for each student teacher they agree to mentor. While these monies are earmarked for the pursuit of professional development, schools, understandably desperate for resources that help in their own mission, do not easily relinquish funds to pay release time for their teachers to attend professional workshops offered by the OST. Professional development linked to student teaching is seen as being the purview and financial obligation of the university. University budgets being pared down, it is difficult to fulfill the mandated university obligation (as per the MELS) to provide this service to our field partners. Minority Sexual Identity Teachers Helping minority sexual identity student teachers to successfully navigate the field experiences and internships is also a challenge for the OST. Their feelings of erasure and insufficient preparation in their program, and the innumerable hurdles and hardships many face in the field are even more pronounced than that of their heterosexual peers (Benson, 2010, 2008; Benson, Smith, & Flanagan, 2013; Meyer, 2007). Compounding this erasure and/or neglect is a relative lack of research into issues of concern to minority sexual identity student teachers in general and to field placement specifically (Capel, 1997; Downey, 2001; Kyriacou & Stephens, 1999). Addressing the unique experiences and needs of these student teachers has become an important aspect of the work of the OST. Disability and the Field A final challenge of note is that presented by students entering our teacher preparation program with a range of learning and mental disabilities. In just the past five years, Québec’s post-secondary institutions have seen an increase of 143% in students with learning disabilities, attention deficits, mental health issues, or with Autism Spectrum Disorders (Conférence des recteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec , 2012). While many professional programs, including those of teacher preparation, have successfully accommodated the delivery and evaluation of standard course material for students with learning and mental disabilities, the field experience components of these programs have not necessarily kept pace. These internships, stages, and field placements are largely evaluated by community partners who may or may not be familiar with, or receptive to, the needs of these students who often encounter seemingly insurmountable hurdles when placed in these external professional environments. This phenomenon is mainly due to a paucity of 36 Global Education Review 1(3) information regarding how best to accommodate these more nuanced and flexible skills in the field, if at all (Benson, Fovet, & Flanagan, 2013). The OST is experiencing a dramatic rise in the number of student teachers who present with disabilities requiring ever increasing interventions of support. This reality is causing serious challenges and tensions in the field. The OST has had to devote time and already strained resources to trying (often inadequately) to support busy cooperating teachers in their efforts to mentor a student teacher with a disability. School principals have expressed their concern with the additional demands being placed on their schools and teachers, and the possible negative repercussions from parents. The OST is engaging in more frequent and difficult conversations with these critical partners around transparency and the lack of policy with regard to student teachers who present with disabilities. There is a paucity of research on realistic ways to support schools, cooperating teachers, and field supervisors who are interacting with student teachers with disabilities (Severance & Starr, 2011) and strategies to increase the likelihood of successful outcomes for these students in the field (Harrison & Lemky, 2000, 1999). Looking Ahead Future initiatives center on researching and designing ever better mechanisms and procedures to ensure access, understanding, accommodation, support, accountability, consistency and clarity for all the stakeholders involved in the field-based component of the McGill teacher preparation program. Snapshots of key projects underway that will carry us into the next decade include: • Developing opportunities in courses and in the field for students to acquire additional expertise with special needs. • Securing more opportunities to work with school administrators to find creative ways to lessen the impact to their workload of hosting student teachers, and by extension encouraging their more direct involvement in student teaching when viewed as a collaborative venture between partners. • Responding to the shrinking English language education sector in Quebec, and subsequently fewer field placements, through creative adaptations of professional learning communities (PLC) that, from the perspective of being a cohort of student teachers working within a school, afford stability in terms of being involved in professional-related activity in order to learn together and from each other (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; DuFour, 2004; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991). • Expanding the work of supporting student teachers who experience transition challenges (program to field) for a range of reasons (minority/at-risk/ populations, mental, health and physical difficulties) in order to better serve these student teachers, the field and by extension, students in schools. This calls for a deepening and expanding collaboration (and publication) with the McGill Office of Students with Disabilities in order to better serve our students, the field and by extension, students in schools. It also requires the provision of professional development within school communities to integrate and support increasing numbers of student teachers who present with a range of disability and difference (Watkinson & Chalmers, 2008). A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 37 • Re-introducing an online evaluation model which will reduce printing and user time- costs. Such a model (based on McGill Faculty of Medicine) was originally piloted in 2005 but not welcomed in the field at that time. There is currently renewed interest in the field. • Working with our partner school boards to investigate and act upon our shared commitment and areas of responsibility around mentoring novice teachers in the field. • Pursuing new and promising offers for International placements and the requisite student funding (Benson and Riches, 2011; Maynes et al., 2012; Pence & Macgillivray, 2008; Riches & Benson, 2011b.) • In collaboration with McGill’s Office for Students with Disabilities and the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, the OST will develop a Statement of Commitment that will enable all stakeholders (student teachers, cooperating teachers, school administrators and field supervisors) to share a common vision of expected conduct and performance during field experiences and internships. The Statement of Commitment will describe a range of desirable dispositions for teachers; those attributes and behaviors that are pre-indicators of success and well-being in the profession. (Rinaldo & Slepkov, 2012; Rinaldo et al, 2009). As a complement to the existing Code of Ethics for Student Teachers (see Appendix N) this document will be signed by students in their initial year of the program. The development process will borrow from the field of Medicine, and other best practices in professional discernment. This important initiative will allow McGill to better support the potential in every pre- service teacher for sound practice in the field. Conclusion “There are no shortcuts in evolution” Louis D. Brandeis It has, perhaps, never been as important for faculties of education to prepare prospective teachers for the multifaceted realities of the classroom and for the challenging role of being a teacher. To achieve these worthy goals is not a task for the faint of heart in the current climate of shrinking resources, professional malaise and fierce competition for jobs. There is consensus across the literature that the interaction between the various theories and practices learned during teacher education programs are bridged at various critical moments that heighten prospective teachers’ appreciation of and ability to manage the complexities associated to the profession. One such unarguably critical bridge is that of practice teaching and there are no shortcuts to making that conduit stronger, better and more secure for its travelers. The Office of Student Teaching will continue to evolve and dedicate its energies, expertise and unflagging dedication to the field-based component of the McGill teacher education program. It will do this in the full understanding of the authentic collaboration with partners and stakeholders that this sort of research and careful work entails. It will do this with the student teacher always in the foreground. It will do this with the belief that supporting excellence in the professional preparation of student teachers will inform exemplary practice and professionalism in the field. We look forward to what the next decade of evolution heralds for the practice teaching component of this Canadian teacher education program. 38 Global Education Review 1(3) Notes 1 http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/en/home/ 2 Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel. An optional post-secondary college system unique to Quebec, at a level between secondary school and university. 3 http://www.mesrst.gouv.qc.ca/ 4 http://www.capfe.gouv.qc.ca References Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2006). Innovations in teacher education: A social constructivist approach. New York: State University of New York Press. Benson, F. (2008). Teacher educators’ practice of queer- care: A necessary expansion of Noddings’ model of care (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, QC. Benson, F. (May, 2010) Queer issues in the study of education and culture. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (Canadian Association for Teacher Education), Montreal, QC. Benson, F., Fovet, F., & Flanagan, T. (2013, June). Easing transitions from program to field for students with disabilities. Paper accepted at the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE), Cape Breton, NS. Benson, F., & Riches, C. (2006). We are listening! Shoulder to shoulder with teachers. (2006). In R. Naqvi (dir). How might teacher education live well in a changing world? Calgary, Alta: Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing. Benson, F., & Riches, C. (2010). Nothing New Under the Sun: Mitigating the Lament of Betrayal in Teacher Education. In J. Maurer & W. Halloway (Eds.) International Research in Teacher Education: Current Perspectives (pp. 157-172). Armidale, NSW, Australia: UNE Conference Company. Benson, F. & Riches, C. (2011) Being the Other: Epiphanies from International Field Experiences and Evidence for Practice. Paper presented at Applied Linguistics Association of Australia/Applied Linguistics Association of New Zealand (Joint) Annual Conference. Canberra, Australia. Benson, F., Fovet, F., & Flanagan, T. (2013, June). Easing transitions from program to field for students with disabilities. Paper accepted at the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE), Cape Breton, NS. Benson, F., Smith, N., & Flanagan, T. (2013). Easing the Transition for Queer Student Teachers from Program to Field: Implications for Places of Teacher Education. Journal of Homosexuality. 61 (3). Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2013) “Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the MET project’s three-year study, Policy and Practitioner Brief.” Retrieved from http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Ensuring_Fai r_and_Reliable_Measures_Practitioner_Brief.pdf Bourhis, R. Y., & Foucher, P. (2012). The Decline of the English School System in Quebec. Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities. Brandeis, Louis D. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved October 27, 2013, from BrainyQuote.com Web site: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/louis dbra100215.html Brown, Collins & Duguid (1989) Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning, Educational Researcher, 18, 32- 42. Capel, S. (1997). Changes in students’ anxieties and concerns after their first and second teaching practices. Educational Research, 39(2), 211-228. Charter of the French language, RSQ, c C-11. (1977). Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K.M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cochran‐Smith, M., Feiman‐Nemser, S., & McIntyre, J. (Eds.), and Demers, K. (Assoc. Ed.). (2008). Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd. ed.). NewYork: Routledge. Conférence des recteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec. (2012). Position des établissements universitaires. À l’égard de l’intégration des clientèles émergentes à l’université. Montréal, QC : CREPUQ. Conseil supérieur de l’éducation (2006). Rapport annuel sur l’état et les besoins de l’éducation 2004-2005. Le dialogue entre la recherche et la pratique en éducation : une clé pour la réussite. Québec : Gouvernement du Québec, Conseil supérieur de l’éducation. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Downey, B. (2001). “Good morning, I’m a heterosexual”: A case in the closet in rural Australia. Education in Rural Australia, 11(2), 33-43. DuFour, R. (2004). "What is a 'Professional Learning Community’?" Educational Leadership 61, 6 - 11. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for Enhancing http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/en/home/ http://www.mesrst.gouv.qc.ca/ http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Ensuring_Fair_and_Reliable_Measures_Practitioner_Brief.pdf http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Ensuring_Fair_and_Reliable_Measures_Practitioner_Brief.pdf A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 39 Student Achievement. Bloomington: National Educational Service. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Routledge. Government of Quebec. (2001). Teacher Training: Orientations, Professional Competencies. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir, et du Sport. Harrison, S., & Lemky, J. (1999). Assisting Preservice Teachers with Special Needs: Four True Stories. Retrieved November 5, 2013 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/searc h/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_Se archV alue_0=ED429770&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0 =no&accno=ED429770 Harrison, S. & Lemky, J. (2000). Two Preservice Teachers with Special Needs and Their Rights: What If Their Teacher Education Experiences Had Gone Awry? Retrieved November 5, 2013 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/det ailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchV alue_0=ED439888&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0 =no&accno=ED439888 Kalmbach Phillips, D., & Carr, K. (2006). Becoming a teacher through Action Research Process: Context and self-study. New York: Routledge. Korthagen, F.A.J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77- 97. Kyriacou, C., & Stephens, P. (1999). Student teachers’ concerns during teaching practice. Evaluation & Research in Education, 13, 18-31. Lamarre, P. (2008). English Education in Quebec: Issues and Challenges. In R.Y. Bourhis (Ed.) The Vitality of the English- Speaking Communities of Quebec: From Community Decline to Revival. Montréal, Quebec: CEETUM, Université de Montréal. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Marcos, J. M., Sanchez, E., & Tillema, H. H. (2011). Promoting teacher reflection: What is said to be done. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(1), 21-36. Maynes, N., Allison, J., & Julien-Schultz, L. (2012). International practica experiences as events of influence in a teacher candidate’s development. McGill Journal of Education 47(1) 69-91. Meyer, E. (2007). Gendered harassment in secondary schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Mitchell, S. N., Reilly, R. C., & Logue, M. E. (2009). Benefits of collaborative action research for the beginning teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 344-349. National Research Council (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press... Nuland, S. (2011). Teacher Education in Canada. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 37(4), 409-421. Office of the Associate Dean (2009). Undergraduate Program Revisioning Report. Faculty of Education, McGill University. Unpublished report. Office of the Associate Dean (2010). MA Teaching and Learning Application for Accreditation. Faculty of Education, McGill University. Unpublished report. Pence, H. M., & Macgillivray, I. K. (2008). The impact of an International field experience on preservice teachers, teaching and teacher education. An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24(1), 14-25. Riches, C., & Benson, F. (May, 2011a). A Story of Teacher Education Program Revisioning as Shared by Insiders. In T. Falkenberg & H. Smits (Eds.) The question of evidence in research in teacher education in the context of teacher education program review in Canada (2 vols.). Winnipeg, MB: Faculty of Education of the University of Manitoba. Riches, C., & Benson, F. (December, 2011b). Bringing Benefit Home: Application of Key Learning from Non-traditional and International Practica to Quebec classrooms, Canadian Society for the Study of Education -CSSE (Canadian Association for Teacher Education -CATE) Conference, Fredericton, NB. Riches, C., Benson, F., & Wood, E. (2013). An intricate dance: Achieving balance in an emergent Master’s degree teacher education program. In H. Smits & T. Falkenberg (Eds.), Becoming teacher: Sites for teacher development. University of Manitoba Press. Manuscript accepted. Rinaldo, V., Denig, S., Sheeran, T., Cramer-Benjamin, R., Vermette, P., Foote, C., & Smith, R. M. (2009). Developing the intangible qualities of good teaching: A self-study. Education, 130(1), 42-52. Rinaldo, V. & Slepkov, H. (2012). Measuring Teacher Dispositional Performance in a Three-Semester Program. Paper presented at Canadian Society for the Study of Education. Schöen, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Severance, T. A., & Starr, P. J. (2011). Beyond the classroom: Internships and students with special needs. Teaching Sociology, 39(2), 200-207. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchV http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchV http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchV 40 Global Education Review 1(3) Starr, K. (2011). Principals and the politics of resistance to change. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39, 646-660. Statistics Canada. (2012, 2011). Population of Quebec. From http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ig-gi/pop-qc- eng.htm). Watkinson, A. M., & Chalmers, D. (2008). Disability, professional unsuitability and the profession of Social Work: A case study, Social Work Education. The International Journal, 27(5), 504-518. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 89(11), 89-99. Zeichner, K., & Conklin, H. G. (2008). Teacher education programs as sites for teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education. (3rd edition, pp. 269-289). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum. About the Author(s) Fiona J Benson, PhD, is the Director of the Office of Student Teaching at McGill’s Faculty of Education and Director of the MA in Teaching and Learning. She is a member of the Department of Integrated Studies in Education. Her areas of teaching and research include teacher education, teacher well-being, professional development, and social justice education. Kate Hooton is the Administrator of the Office of Student Teaching at McGill University. She oversees the implementation and management of student teaching field placements at the undergraduate and graduate levels, supports policy development and works closely with schools and students. Her research interests are in higher education administration. Appendices All documents available online at www.mcgill.ca/ost Contents A. 12 PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHER TRAINING (MELS) ...................................... 41 B. GUIDE TO PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT (MCGILL OST) ................................ 42 C. ASSESSMENT SCALES: 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) .................................................................................. 43 D. SELF-EVALUATION COMPETENCY GRIDS (MCGILL OST) .............................................................. 44 E. YEARLY COMPETENCY OVERVIEW (MCGILL OST) .......................................................................... 45 F. ACTION PLAN (MCGILL OST) ................................................................................................................ 46 G. Excerpt from PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO GUIDELINES (MCGILL OST) ...................................... 47 H. ASSESSMENT FORM AND SCHEDULE: FIELD EXPERIENCE 1, 2013 (MCGILL OST) .................. 51 I. ASSESSMENT FORMS: FIELD EXPERIENCE 2, 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) ......................................... 52 J. ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE AND FORMS: FIELD EXPERIENCE 3, 2012-13 ..................................... 54 K. ASSESSMENT FORMS: FIELD EXPERIENCE 4, 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) ......................................... 57 L. ASSESSMENT MODEL: INTERNSHIP 1, 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) ...................................................... 58 M. ASSESSMENT FORMS: INTERNSHIP 2, 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) ................................................. 60 N. CODE OF ETHICS FOR STUDENT TEACHERS (MCGILL OST) ........................................................ 60 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ig-gi/pop-qc-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ig-gi/pop-qc-eng.htm http://www.mcgill.ca/ost A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 41 A. 12 PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHER TRAINING (MELS) • COMPETENCY 1: To act as a professional who is inheritor, critic and interpreter of knowledge or culture when teaching students • COMPETENCY 2: To communicate clearly in the language of instruction, both orally and in writing, using correct grammar, in various contexts related to teaching • COMPETENCY 3: To develop teaching/learning situations that are appropriate to the students concerned and to the subject content with a view to developing the competencies targeted in the programs of study • COMPETENCY 4: To pilot teaching/learning situations that are appropriate to the students concerned and to the subject content with a view to developing the competencies targeted in the programs of study • COMPETENCY 5: To evaluate student progress in learning the subject content and mastering the related competencies • COMPETENCY 6: To plan, organize and supervise a class in such a way as to promote students’ learning and social development • COMPETENCY 7: To adapt his or her teaching to the needs and characteristics of students with learning disabilities, social maladjustments or handicaps • COMPETENCY 8: To integrate information and communications technologies (ICT) in the preparation and delivery of teaching/learning activities and for instructional management and professional development purposes • COMPETENCY 9: To cooperate with school staff, parents, partners in the community and students in pursuing the educational objectives of the school or centre • COMPETENCY 10: To cooperate with members of the teaching team in carrying out tasks involving the development and evaluation of the competencies targeted in the programs of study, taking into account the students concerned • COMPETENCY 11: To engage in professional development individually and with others • COMPETENCY 12: To demonstrate ethical and responsible professional behaviour in the performance of his or her duties 42 Global Education Review 1(3) B. GUIDE TO PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT (MCGILL OST) Sample page: Competency 4, with all features applicable to B.Ed field experience 4 and MA internship 2 DOMAIN: TEACHING ACT COMPTENCY 4: To pilot teaching/learning situations that are appropriate to the students concerned and the subject content with a view to developing the competencies targeted in the programs of study. FEATURES ADDRESSED DURING FIELD EXPERIENCE 4 HOW THE STUDENT TEACHER MAY DEMONSTRATE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE FEATURES APPROPRIATE TO FIELD EXPERIENCE 4 / INTERNSHIP 2 • Creates conditions in which students can engage in meaningful problem situations, tasks or projects, based on their cognitive, emotional and social characteristics. • Provides students with the resources they need to take part in the learning situations. • Guides students in selecting, interpreting and understanding the information provided in various resources and in understanding the elements of a problem situation or the requirements of a task or project. • Support student learning by asking questions and providing frequent and relevant feedback to promote the integration and transfer of learning. • Encourages teamwork.  employs a student-centred teaching approach and encourages teamwork  is organized, motivates and encourages students throughout the learning process  sets up situations for meaningful learning  reflects learning as a joyful and expansive process  provides students with necessary and helpful resources  helps students find/incorporate/reorder information into their work  gauges student understanding through effective questioning  shows awareness and responsiveness to student confusion  provides timely, insightful and relevant feedback WHAT THE STUDENT TEACHER SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO BY THE END OF FIELD EXPERIENCE 4  facilitate student learning with purposeful class activities  encourage teamwork  detect and remedy teaching/learning problems Competencies targeted in each field experience and internship: Undergraduate B.Ed program: Field Experience 1- competencies 1, 2, 9, 11 and 12 Field Experience 2- competencies 2, 4, 6, 10, 11 and 12 Field Experience 3- all 12, but with additional assistance for competencies 5, 6 and 7. Field Experience 4- all 12 Graduate MA Teaching and Learning program: Internship 1-all 12, but with additional assistance for competencies 5, 6 and 7. Internship 2-all 12 A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 43 C. ASSESSMENT SCALES: D. 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) Competency Rubric for Formative and Summative Assessments Field Experiences 2, 3 and 4 5 Advanced Competency has been fully grasped and integrated into practice The student teacher consistently shows deep understanding of and ability to enact all appropriate features of this competency. 4 Thorough Competency is being thoughtfully approached and roundly developed The student teacher has a thorough understanding of this competency/ selected features and demonstrates ongoing development in enactment. 3 Acceptable Competency is being adequately addressed but requires development The student teacher demonstrates an average understanding while showing moderate development in enactment of the competency. 2 Partial Competency requires considerable development The student teacher experiences some difficulty in attaining an adequate level of proficiency in this competency. 1 Minimal Competency is not developed The student teacher experiences great difficulty in attaining an appropriate level of proficiency is competency and/or does not understand current expectati or the effort required for sustained improvement. New Competency Rubric for Field Experience 1, 2013 S Satisfactory Competency has been thoughtfully approached and integrated The student teacher has a thorough understanding of this competency/selected features and consistently demonstrates ongoing development in enactment as appropriate to this Field Experience. D Developing Competency requires development The student teacher experiences some difficulty in attaining an adequate level of proficiency in this competency, but has started to apply some concrete strategies for improvement based on feedback. Implementation may be uneven; however development to ‘Satisfactory’ is likely with further experience. U Undeveloped Competency is an area of concern The student teacher experiences great difficulty in attaining an appropriate level of proficiency in this competency despite feedback and/or does not understand current expectations or the effort required for sustained improvement. 44 Global Education Review 1(3) 7 E. SELF-EVALUATION COMPETENCY GRIDS (MCGILL OST) Completed by the student teacher at the end of each field experience or internship for each target competency. Example: Competency 7. SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT (7, 8, 9, 10) To adapt his or her teaching to the needs and characteristics of students with learning disabilities, social maladjustments or handicaps. FEATURES • Facilitates the educational and social integration of students with learning disabilities, social maladjustments or handicaps. • Consults resource people and parents to obtain background information on students with difficulties (needs, progress, etc.). • Proposes learning tasks, challenges and roles within the class that help students to progress. • Participates in developing and implementing individualized education plans. LEVEL OF MASTERY By the end of his or her initial training, the student teacher should be able to : • Cooperate in the development and implementation of individualized education plans designed for students under his or her responsibility. How have I developed this competency during this course or professional seminar/field experience? What is my current level of mastery? (choose one)* ADVANCED THOROUGH ACCEPTABLE PARTIAL MINIMAL *Use the features of the competency (listed above) and the professional competency rubric. Name _____________________________________________________ ID ________________________ Date: ____________________ Course Name & Number (e.g. EDEC 253) _________________ PS/FE level (circle one) 1 2 3 4 KEEP THESE FORMS IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO. YOU WILL ADD TO THEM EACH YEAR. A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 45 F. YEARLY COMPETENCY OVERVIEW (MCGILL OST) PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES: YEARLY PROGRESS REVIEW Chart your progress in each of the 12 competencies, based on the detailed self-evaluation sheets. minimal partial acceptable thorough advanced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 46 Global Education Review 1(3) G. ACTION PLAN (MCGILL OST) ACTION PLAN To contribute to the goal of preparing reflective practitioners, student teachers will write an Action Plan at the end of first, second, and third field experience with input from their cooperating teacher and/or the University supervisor. The Action Plan synthesizes each field experience’s evaluation, links each field experience to the next, establishes goals for improvement, and forms an agenda for discussion between the student teacher, the cooperating teacher and University supervisor at the beginning of the subsequent field experience. For First Field Experience only (excluding Physical Education students), the Action Plan will be completed during the co-requisite Professional Seminar course. Name ____________________________ Student Number ______________________ B.Ed. Program: _____________________ Field Experience: 1st 2nd 3rd I have shown thorough to advanced development in the following Professional Competencies developed during this field experience: I would like to improve my skills in the following Professional Competencies developed during this field experience: I will make use of the following strategies for improvement: __________________________________ ____________________________________ Student teacher’s signature Date This completed Action Plan is to be discussed with your cooperating teacher and McGill supervisor at the start of your subsequent field experience. A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 47 H. Excerpt from PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO GUIDELINES (MCGILL OST) Contents of Professional Portfolio, B.Ed Working Portfolio Showcase Required Content Description 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Table of contents     Section dividers or chapters for DVDs A table of contents to each (as appropriate) of the 12 Professional Competencies (PC)     Section Heading: Autobiography: Personal/professional intersections and their meanings C.V. / Resumé 2 pages  Section Heading: Professional Identity: Moving from personal to professional as teacher Statement of philosophy of education Theoretical or philosophical bases or orientations that inform teacher action.     Professional Competencies PC Self-Evaluation grids (showing development of the 12 PCs (as appropriate to the level of field experience).     PC Yearly Overview.   Action Plan Report on strengths and areas for improvement that targets competencies or indicators from one field experience to the next. (FE 1 to FE 4)    Professional Development Plan A plan for professional development goals as a novice teacher (realistic objectives that target competencies or indicators and document strengths and aspects requiring improvement)  Self-Assessment Criteria for Showcase Professional Portfolio An assessment tool for personal use. May be used during peer editing and for discussion/sharing purposes. See below. Section Heading: Teaching and Learning: Examples and artifacts of classroom performance Learning Evaluation Situations (LESs) & Individual Education Plans (IEPs) Design, development, piloting, assessment and reflection on planning for inclusive/ differentiated teaching and learning, that includes multimedia/ technology.   Section Heading: Embracing Cultural Diversity: Critical awareness of the cultural mosaic 48 Global Education Review 1(3) Appreciation of the richness and potential of the community of learners, understanding of cultural backgrounds, beliefs, values, influences on teaching and learning Responses to articles, readings, reflections on various LESs etc.     Suggested Documents to Select from the Working Portfolio for Inclusion in the Showcase Portfolio as Indicators of Mastery of Professional Competencies (careful and limited selection) You will notice there exists a natural overlap in terms of materials selected as evidence of competency development. It is up to you to determine how you wish to select materials to showcase your mastery of each of the 12 professional competencies. Please make sure to protect the anonymity of any individuals recorded, quoted or in any way mentioned in any of the materials included in the Working and Showcase Professional Portfolios Competency 1: To act as a professional who is inheritor, critic and interpreter of knowledge or culture when teaching students  CV  Letter of introduction  Letters of reference (maximum 2 at least one addressing teaching skill, from cooperating teachers, supervisors, principals, volunteer work supervisors, community school teachers/leaders, librarians, camp directors, university professors, etc.)  Diplomas, degrees and certificates  Evaluation forms from cooperating teachers, administrators and supervisors (selected formative and/or summative and anecdotal showing professional growth and development)  Philosophy of Education (values, beliefs and views about teaching and learning)  Reflections/statement on actions taken that made it possible to understand students’ cultural reality (critical awareness of the cultural mosaic, appreciation of the richness and potential of the community of learners, responses to articles/key thinkers, ongoing professional development etc.)  Reflection on professional development in program and field experiences including reflections on selected professional development goals as articulated in LESs  PC grid Competency 2: To communicate clearly in the language of instruction, both orally and in writing, using correct grammar, in various contexts related to teaching  Texts intended for students, parents or colleagues A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 49  PC grid Competency 3: To develop teaching/learning situations that are appropriate to the students concerned and to the subject content with a view to developing the competencies targeted in the programs of study  Demonstration of subject-related knowledge  Plans for meaningful and varied learning situations related to subject-specific competency development (e.g. LES, IEP)  Supplementing LESs/IEPs, e.g. board game, classroom posters, PowerPoint presentations etc.  Attention to differentiation and appreciation of varied learning styles/multiple intelligences  PC grid Competency 4: To pilot teaching/learning situations that are appropriate to the students concerned and to the subject content with a view to developing the competencies targeted in the programs of study  Reflections on personal teaching style  Accounts of learning situations that fostered the integration and application of acquired knowledge  Student work showing the application of acquired knowledge  Photos of students in classes (permissions must be obtained for inclusion of this material in the portfolio)  DVD of teaching (permissions must be obtained for inclusion of this material in the portfolio)  PC grid Competency 5: To evaluate student progress in learning the subject content and mastering the related competencies  Examples of student work (evaluation focus, criteria, feedback etc.)  Methods and tools designed and used to evaluate the development of the targeted competencies  PC grid Competency 6: To plan, organize and supervise a class as a way to promote students’ learning and social development  Examples of methods of implementing rules of conduct  Examples of methods of organizing classrooms (materials, assigned work, resources etc.)  Ways that activities were made meaningful to different students  PC grid Competency 7: To adapt his or her teaching to the needs and characteristics of students with learning disabilities, social maladjustments or handicaps  Examples of teaching strategies for different types of students  Accounts of ways of gathering and using information in order to gain a better understanding of students with challenges and to provide them with the necessary support  Participation in individualized education plans (IEPs) if this opportunity presented itself  PC grid Competency 8: To integrate information and communications technologies (ICT) in the preparation and delivery of teaching/learning activities and for instructional management and professional development purposes  Student work using ICT demonstrating the development of competencies  Description of opportunities provided to students to apply ICT competencies  Examples of different types of productions (web pages etc.) 50 Global Education Review 1(3)  PC grid Competency 9: To cooperate with school staff, parents, partners in the community and students in pursuing the educational objectives of the school or centre  Accounts of participation in school/community projects  Photos, DVDs and descriptions of special projects (permissions must be obtained for inclusion of this material in the portfolio)  Community and volunteer teaching, field trips, school club, etc. (permissions must be obtained for inclusion of this material in the portfolio)  Extra-curricular activities (description of serious and substantial involvement in sports, dance, music, dramatics, student projects etc.)  PC grid Competency 10: To cooperate with members of the teaching team in carrying out tasks involving the development and evaluation of the competencies targeted in the programs of study, taking into account the students concerned  Examples of collaboration and professional involvement with administrators, CTs, staff and other members of the school community to plan learning scenarios, develop certain tools  PC grid Competency 11: To engage in professional development individually and with others  Action Plan  Various annotated texts from journals, books, newspapers etc.  Examples of initiatives taken in the classroom following readings/workshops etc.  Reports of participation in workshops at conventions or seminars/ped days and description of their relevance to ongoing professional development  Professional Development Plan (a plan for professional development goals as a novice teacher with realistic objectives that target competencies or indicators and document strengths and aspects requiring improvement)  PC grid Competency 12: To demonstrate ethical and responsible professional behavior in the performance of his or her duties  Examples of decisions related to student learning, including justifications  Examples of decisions related to the evaluation of student learning, including justifications  Accounts of projects demonstrating cooperative approaches in the classroom and analysis of impact on students and own professional development  Accounts of means used to recognize and address conflicts related to racial, sexual or other forms of discrimination  Reflection on connections between own beliefs and values and responsible professional behavior  PC grid  PC Yearly Overview A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 51 I. ASSESSMENT FORM AND SCHEDULE: FIELD EXPERIENCE 1, 2013 (MCGILL OST) Week 1 Day 1- Supervisor is present. He or she assists school administrator with orientation, establishes contact with teachers and staff involved and distributes documents as necessary, observes students, provides guidance or answers questions to ensure FE proceeds smoothly. Day 2 – Supervisor visit: He or she observes and counsels student teachers, assists with organization as necessary. Week 2 Supervisor visit: He or she observes student teachers and gathers feedback on performance from school administrator, teachers and staff. Week 3 Supervisor visit: He or she observes student teachers and collaborates with cooperating teachers and/or the school administrator to complete the assessment form. A reference copy of the form is included with these guidelines for school staff; the supervisor has the triplicate form. The assessment form must be co-signed by (1) the supervisor (2) the cooperating teacher/school administrator. PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT S D U Foundations (Professional Competencies 1 & 2) Makes efforts to get to know and understand school culture and how this affects learning Actively observes teacher’s actions and gives evidence of reflection (by keeping a journal, in conversation, etc.) Seeks out opportunities to engage with students Communicates appropriately, clearly and accurately – orally and in writing Social and Educational Context (Professional Competency 9) Collaborates and participates in activities of the school community Supports student involvement in school projects and events Professional Identity (Professional Competencies 11 & 12) Responds well and promptly to feedback and suggestions Is appropriately dressed and well groomed Is punctual and reliable Supports and treats all students equally and appropriately Behaves in a manner expected of a teaching professional Discussion with the student teacher about this assessment should be undertaken in a timely manner. Comments: I recommend that (name of student teacher)_____________________________________  is ready  is not ready to proceed to the second field experience. Signature:_____________________________________________ Cooperating Teacher OR School Administrator Signature:______________________________________________ McGill Supervisor 52 Global Education Review 1(3) J. ASSESSMENT FORMS: FIELD EXPERIENCE 2, 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) Week Supervisor Cooperating Teacher 1 Introductory Meeting (CT, Supervisor and student) n/a Week 1 Report (end of week) 2 Formative 1*(on small group work) Formative 1* (on small group work) 3 Formative 2* (implementation of co-planned lesson), and Summative assessment Formative 2* (implementation of co-planned lesson), and Summative assessment * formative assessments have 2 pages: observation form, and post-observation conference. Supervisor or cooperating teacher must be informed in advance of the general nature of the activity to be assessed. Week 1 Report: Assess competency development in the following areas: 5 4 3 2 1 Makes efforts to get to know and understand school culture and learning goals Seeks out opportunities to engage with teachers and students Responds well to feedback and suggestions and adjusts actions Behaves in a manner expected of a teaching professional Comment, providing explicit examples, on the progress of the student teacher in each of the following domains: • FOUNDATIONS AND TEACHING ACT (e.g. attitude, aptitude, initiative, organization, participation, professional communication skills) • SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT (e.g. extra-curricular involvement, team-work, resourcefulness) • PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY (e.g. observation and reflection [keeping a professional log], ethical and responsible outlook and behaviour, maturity, dependability and collegiality) Formative Assessment: PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT 5 4 3 2 1 Assess based on observation of part or all of a lesson co-planned with cooperating teacher: Foundations (Professional Competency 2) Communicates appropriately, clearly and accurately at all times– orally and in writing Recognizes and corrects errors in students’ oral and written work Teaching Act (Professional Competencies 4 & 6) Lesson objectives have been met Structures and makes the learning relevant to the students and subject-specific competencies Encourages students to work well together Sustains a positive, assertive and professional presence *Maintains routines that ensure the smooth running of the classroom *Monitors, interprets and responds fairly to issues of classroom conduct A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 53 Professional Identity (Professional Competencies 11 & 12) Behaves in a manner expected of a teaching professional Maintains a complete and up-to-date record of lesson planning and post- teaching reflection Is appropriately dressed and well groomed Is punctual and reliable *With the help of the cooperating teacher. Discuss the above assessment with the student teacher and record your comments on the Post- Observation Conference form (required). This meeting should be undertaken in a timely manner. 54 Global Education Review 1(3) K. ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE AND FORMS: FIELD EXPERIENCE 3, 2012-13 Week Supervisor Cooperating Teacher 1 Introductory Meeting (CT, Supervisor and student) 4 Formative 1* Formative 1* 7 Formative 2*, Interim Report Formative 2*, Interim Report 10 Formative 3* (CT and supervisor observe same lesson and complete forms collaboratively) 12 Formative 4* Formative 4* 16 Summative assessment Summative assessment *Each formative assessment has 3 steps: pre-observation conference (review of lesson plan), observation form, and post-observation conference. Pre-Observation Conference Form: Review the student teacher’s lesson plan: 5 4 3 2 1 Plans and frames activities with logical progressions of learning within the lesson Links the lesson to subject-specific competencies (knowledge, strategies, skills) Incorporates current resources and suitable teaching approaches from a range of sources into lesson plan Differentiates the lesson to accommodate the needs of students Integrates ICT (as appropriate) in the design of lesson Targets a self-directed specific teaching skill for development Comments and strategies for improvement and on-going professional development based on the lesson plan:______________________________________________________________ ___________________. Observation Form: PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT 5 4 3 2 1 Assess based on observation of the targeted lesson: Foundations (Professional Competencies 1 & 2) Understands the subject and program-specific content to be taught Adopts a thoughtfully informed and accessible approach to the subject matter Is aware of current events and makes connections to curriculum Communicates appropriately, clearly and accurately at all times– orally and in writing Recognizes and corrects errors in students’ oral and written work Teaching Act (Professional Competencies 3, 4, 5, 6) Lesson objectives have been met Structures and makes the learning relevant to the students and subject-specific competencies Encourages students to approach subject matter in a critical manner and to work well together Designs and uses evaluation tools/ feedback to enable/show development of A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 55 competencies Acknowledges adjustments as required and makes necessary changes in his/her teaching Sustains a positive, assertive and professional presence Introduces and maintains routines that ensure the smooth running of the classroom Anticipates and solves organizational problems that hinder the smooth running of the class Social and Educational Context (Professional Competencies 7, 8, 9, 10) Effectively implements information and communications technology (ICT) (as appropriate) Helps students use ICT to effectively support learning (as appropriate) Identifies strengths and weaknesses of students in a learning situation Works to solve problems and support students who exhibit inappropriate behaviours Cooperates in the implementation of IEPs (if applicable) Professional Identity (Professional Competencies 11 & 12) Behaves in a manner expected of a teaching professional Maintains a complete and up-to-date record of lesson plans (logbook) Is appropriately dressed and well groomed Is punctual and reliable Demonstrates sufficient responsibility so that a class can be entrusted to his/her care Post-Observation Conference Form: Record comments and concrete strategies for improvement and on-going professional development, based on the Observation Assessment:_________________________________________________________ _____. Interim Report Assess competency development in the following areas: 5 4 3 2 1 Responds well to feedback and suggestions Strengths, limitations and strategies for improvement have been identified Contributes to the work of the team in an effective manner (including IEPs, if applicable) Participates in the activities of the school community A professional and up-to-date log of lesson plans and observations on teaching/learning is maintained Yes No The student teacher has selected and discussed aspects of their field experience 56 Global Education Review 1(3) to date (e.g. LES, evidence of student learning, self-assessments) for inclusion in the Working Professional Portfolio (or logbook for B.Ed Phys Ed) that show evidence of ongoing insight into their professional development. Based on your observations, provide your thoughts on the progress of the student teacher in each of the following domains: • FOUNDATIONS AND TEACHING ACT (subject and subject-specific competency knowledge; student awareness; lesson planning and enactment; student engagement, learning and assessment; classroom management; professional communication and cooperation; maintaining a professional log etc.) • SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT (differentiation; use of ICT; school/community involvement; team-work and collaboration; innovation, creativity and autonomy etc.) • PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY (self-observation and reflection; professional development; Working Professional Portfolio; ethical and responsible outlook and behaviour; maturity, dependability and collegiality etc.) Summative Assessment Summation of Formative Assessments: Please indicate the degree of accomplishment of the student teacher’s development of each of the twelve professional competencies; as appropriate for a 3rd year student teacher. The “Guide to PC Development” and the “Professional Competency Rubric” may be helpful. PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES 5 4 3 2 1 1. To act as a professional inheritor, critic and interpreter of knowledge or culture when teaching students 2. To communicate clearly in the language of instruction, both orally and in writing, using correct grammar, in various contexts related to teaching. 3. To develop teaching/learning situations that are appropriate to the students concerned and the subject content with a view to developing the competencies targeted in the programs of study. 4. To pilot teaching/learning situations that are appropriate to the students concerned and the subject content with a view to developing the competencies targeted in the programs of study. 5. To evaluate student progress in learning the subject content and mastering the related competencies. 6. To plan, organize and supervise a class in such a way as to promote students’ learning and social development. 7. To adapt his or her teaching to the needs and characteristics of students with learning disabilities, social maladjustments or handicaps. 8. To integrate information and communication technologies (ICT) in the preparation and delivery of teaching/learning activities and for instructional management and A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 57 professional development purposes. 9. To cooperate with school staff, parents, partners in the community and students in pursuing the educational objectives of the school. 10. To cooperate with members of the teaching team in carrying out tasks involving the development and evaluation of the competencies targeted in the programs of study, taking into account the students concerned. 11. To engage in professional development individually and with others. 12. To demonstrate ethical and responsible professional behaviour in the performance of his or her duties. Comments: I recommend that (name of student teacher)________________________________ is  is not  ready to proceed to the next field experience. Signature:_________________________________________ Cooperating Teacher / Supervisor (circle one) L. ASSESSMENT FORMS: FIELD EXPERIENCE 4, 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) Week Supervisor Cooperating Teacher 1 Introductory Meeting (CT, Supervisor and student) 2 – 3 Formative 1* Formative 1* 4 Interim Report Interim Report 5 Formative 2* (CT and supervisor observe same lesson and complete forms collaboratively) 6 n/a Formative 3 7 Summative and Professional Portfolio support visit, Coaching conversation Summative, Coaching conversation *Each formative assessment has 3 steps: pre-observation conference (review of lesson plan), observation form, and post-observation conference. The assessment forms used are the same as Field Experience 3; students are assessed based on their program year. 58 Global Education Review 1(3) M. ASSESSMENT MODEL: INTERNSHIP 1, 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) Week Supervisor Cooperating Teacher 1 Introductory Meeting N/A Observation Form 2 Observation visit and form N/A Assessment of readiness to teach 4 Formative 1* Formative 1* 6 Formative 2 Formative 2 7 Interim Report Interim Report 9 Formative 3 (together) 10 N/A Formative 4 12 Summative and portfolio support visit Summative Formative (Pre-Observation Conference, Observation, and Post-Observation Conference) and Interim forms are the same as Field Experience 3. Student teachers placed with a cooperating teacher are also assessed with the following 2 forms: Initial observation period (at end of week 1) Based on your observations, provide your thoughts on the progress of the student teacher in the following domains: Professional Competencies 1 and 2 : FOUNDATIONS (engagement, attitude, initiative and participation; professional communication skills, etc.) Professional Competency 9: SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT (school/community involvement; team-work, support and collaboration etc.) Professional Competencies 11 and 12: PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY (observation and reflection [keeping a professional log]; ethical and responsible outlook and behaviour; maturity, dependability and collegiality, etc.) Assessment of Readiness to Teach (at end of first two weeks) PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT 5 4 3 2 1 Foundations (Professional Competencies 1 & 2) Makes efforts to get to know and understand school culture and learning goals Makes efforts to observe and understand links between subjects and an interdisciplinary approach to teaching Seeks out opportunities to engage with, and listen to, teachers and students Seeks out opportunities to better understand the ways in which students relate to school, teachers and learning Communicates appropriately, clearly and accurately – orally and in writing A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 59 Shows on-going efforts to improve own communication skills Teaching Act (Professional Competencies 3, 4, 5, 6) Sustains a positive, assertive and professional presence (With assistance of cooperating teacher) maintains routines that ensure the smooth running of the classroom Social and Educational Context (Professional Competency 9) Collaborates and participates in activities of the school community Supports student involvement in school projects and events Professional Identity (Professional Competencies 11 & 12) Responds well to feedback Reflects upon teaching role and professional identity Is appropriately dressed and well groomed Is punctual and reliable Behaves in a manner expected of a teaching professional Comments: I recommend that (name of student teacher)_____________________________________  is not ready  is ready to proceed to the 10-week teaching period of Internship 1. If student is not ready to proceed, a Notification of Concern form with a remediation plan must be completed by the Cooperating Teacher and Supervisor. Signatures:________________________Cooperating Teacher and_______________________Supervisor The summative form for all Internship 1 students is the same as the FE 3 summative form,with the addition of a grading key matching the 1-5 assessment scale to the letter grade scale in use in all McGill Graduate studies programs: Summation of formative Assessments for Learning and Interim Report: Indicate the degree of accomplishment of the student teacher’s development of the twelve professional competencies, and indicate a final percentage grade using the key below. KEY: 5 = Advanced 4 = Thorough 3 = Acceptable 2 = Partial 1 = Minimal McGill : A (85-100) A-/B+ (75-84) B (70-74) B- (65-69) F (0- 64) 60 Global Education Review 1(3) N. ASSESSMENT FORMS: INTERNSHIP 2, 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) Week Supervisor Cooperating Teacher 1 Introductory Meeting 3 Formative 1* Formative 1* 4 Formative 2 Formative 2 6 Interim Report Interim Report 9 Formative 3 (together) 10 N/A Formative 4 11 Summative and portfolio support visit Summative Professional coaching conversation Assessment forms are the same as FE 3 (Appendix J), with the addition of the Graduate grading scale as described in Appendix L. O. CODE OF ETHICS FOR STUDENT TEACHERS (MCGILL OST) Code of ethics for student teachers A. Preamble – A student-centred perspective Mandate: A joint subcommittee consisting of members from two standing committees of the Faculty of Education (Faculty of Education Ethical Review Board and Student Standing) was created to develop a Code of Ethics for Student Teachers and to examine the ways in which this Code will be communicated to students, faculty members and educational partners. Goals and rationale: The interests of the two Standing Committees of the Faculty of Education in promoting appropriate ethical and professional conduct have led us to develop the following Code of Ethics for Student Teachers. This code seeks to respond to, and address the following needs: • The Code addresses the interdependent duties, rights and responsibilities of student teachers, faculty members and educational partners. • By addressing common issues and needs, the Code seeks to articulate and make explicit ethical principles that transcend disciplinary boundaries. These principles reflect the fundamental values that are expressed in the duties, rights and responsibilities of all involved in Teacher Education. • The Code requires a reasonable flexibility in the implementation of common principles. It is designed to help those involved in Teacher Education, as a matter of sound ethical reasoning, to understand and respect the contexts in which they work and accommodate the needs of others. • The Code seeks to encourage continued reflection and thoughtful response to ethical issues. It does not seek definitive answers to all ethical questions or situations. Rather, it seeks to outline the guiding principles to ethical conduct and to identify major issues which are essential to the development and implementation of this Code. A Decade of Evolution in the Practice Teaching Component 61 Context of an ethics framework for student teachers The principles and norms guiding ethical conduct are developed within an ever-evolving complex societal context, elements of which include the need for reflective action and ethical principles. Education is premised on a fundamental moral commitment to advance and construct knowledge and to ensure human understanding and respect for individual and collective well being and integrity. The moral imperative of respect translates into the following ethical principles that assume a student- centred perspective as articulated in the Quebec Curriculum Reform and Competencies outlined for Teacher Education. B. Academic freedom and responsibilities Teachers enjoy, and should continue to enjoy important freedoms and privileges. However, with freedoms come responsibilities and ethical challenges. This Code of Ethics is in keeping with the philosophy and spirit of the New Directions that are embedded in the document Teacher Training: Orientations, Professional Competencies (Ministère de l’Éducation 2001) and the reflective practice literature. The role of the teacher and the contexts of teaching have changed. Thus, new resources (knowledge, skills, attitudes) are required to practice the profession and meet the challenges of teaching and learning in whatever contexts student teachers may find themselves and to engage in professional development individually and with others. C. Ethics and law “Teaching is governed by a legal and regulatory framework” (MEQ p. 120). The law affects and regulates the standards and norms of teaching behaviors in a variety of ways such as respecting privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property, competence. Human rights legislation prohibits discrimination and recognizes equal treatment as fundamental to human dignity and well being. Teachers should respect the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms particularly the sections dealing with life, liberty and the security of the person as well as those involving equality and discrimination and the Education Act that sets out the obligations and rights of teachers. D. Guiding ethical principles Ethical student teachers should respect the following guiding ethical principles: 1. Respect for human dignity o Speaks and acts towards all students with respect and dignity; and deals judiciously with them at all times, always mindful of their individual rights and personal sensibilities. o Respects the dignity and responsibilities of cooperating teachers, peers, principals, parents and other professionals or para-professionals within the school, school board and community. 2. Respect for vulnerable persons o Respects and recognizes ethical obligations towards vulnerable persons. This principle recognizes that students are in a vulnerable position and that student teachers are in a privileged relationship with students and their families and will always refrain from exploiting that relationship in any form or manner. 3. Respect for confidentiality and privacy o Respects the confidential nature of all information related to students and their families and will share such information in an appropriate manner only with those directly concerned with their welfare. 62 Global Education Review 1(3) o Respects the confidential nature of all information related to all school personnel and will share such information in an appropriate manner. 4. Respect for justice o Respects and recognizes the right of individuals to be treated with fairness and equity and the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest. 5. Respect for safety of students o Respects the right of individuals to expect that student teachers will engage in practices that aim to ensure the physical, psychological and emotional safety of students. 6. Respect for existing ethical codes and professional standards o Respects the authority, roles and responsibilities of the cooperating teacher and agrees to adhere to the responsibilities and obligations for teachers as outlined in the Education Act, Faculty and University handbooks as well as all local agreements by host school boards and schools. 7. Balancing harm and benefits o Acknowledges that any potentially harmful practices (eg. Science Labs and Physical Education Activities) must be balanced with anticipated benefits and conducted in a prudent informed manner. Formative Assessment Forms Interim Report Form (Field Experience 3 & 4) Summative Assessment Form Notification of Concern (NOC) Form Feedback form (General) Feedback Form (student teacher’s comments concerning supervision) Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K.M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. A. 12 PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHER TRAINING (MELS) B. GUIDE TO PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT (MCGILL OST) C. ASSESSMENT SCALES: D. 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) E. SELF-EVALUATION COMPETENCY GRIDS (MCGILL OST) F. YEARLY COMPETENCY OVERVIEW (MCGILL OST) G. ACTION PLAN (MCGILL OST) H. Excerpt from PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO GUIDELINES (MCGILL OST) I. ASSESSMENT FORM AND SCHEDULE: FIELD EXPERIENCE 1, 2013 (MCGILL OST) J. ASSESSMENT FORMS: FIELD EXPERIENCE 2, 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) K. ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE AND FORMS: FIELD EXPERIENCE 3, 2012-13 L. ASSESSMENT FORMS: FIELD EXPERIENCE 4, 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) M. ASSESSMENT MODEL: INTERNSHIP 1, 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) N. ASSESSMENT FORMS: INTERNSHIP 2, 2012-13 (MCGILL OST) O. CODE OF ETHICS FOR STUDENT TEACHERS (MCGILL OST)