Results from the Student Questionnaire:
Which of the following specific recommendations would you make to improve cohesion between classes and placement experiences, or across elective and mandatory classes? (Chose as many as apply.)
72% : Less overall assignments but the same number of courses
All others, 10% or less:
Which of the following specific recommendations would you make to improve cohesion between classes and placement experiences, or across elective and mandatory classes? (Chose as many as apply.)
72% : Less overall assignments but the same number of courses
All others, 10% or less:
- Fewer courses but the same amount of assignments within each course
- Integrate major assignments between separate courses
- Reduce compulsory courses and increase elective courses
- Introduce elective streams
- Offer more online courses
- Begin placement earlier, closer to the first day of school
- Re-configure Professional Development delivery
Enhancing Program Cohesion
Proposal from the Faculty Working Group
led by Meridith Lovell-Johnston
with Alex Thomson, Linda Grant, Randy Hoover, Denise Calvert, Jennifer Copeland, & Gary Pluim
1. Overview
The Program Cohesion working group undertook the task of examining teacher candidates’ (and instructors’) concerns around program cohesion, sequencing, and load. One goal was to examine the in-class learning through courses and coursework, i.e., the progression from beginning of first year to the first placement; ways to use the second term to build carry-through from first semester, and ultimately, how to have flow through to a second year that is meaningful, builds on candidates’ previous experiences while reducing redundancy, and permits choice and differentiation. With this, we want to support a more balanced workload and scheduling. Our second goal was to examine ideas for supporting candidates on placement, i.e., ensuring that there are greater opportunities for situated learning (and links between coursework and placement to apply learning in authentic ways), as well as opportunities for mentorship and professional growth. Our third goal is to examine other learning opportunities, such as professional development opportunities, that are made available to teacher candidates to supplement their in-class learning. These key areas also support the work being done by the other two working groups around learning environment and andragogy.
In each section below, we summarize the concerns raised through consultation with or feedback from the Teacher Candidates. We discuss our vision for what is essential and foundational for first year teacher candidates as well as how to help transition candidates to young professionals through fostering choice, specialization, and independence in second year. Finally, we present specific recommendations for consideration.
2. Courses, Coursework, and Scheduling
2.1 Summary of Teacher Candidate Concerns
Key areas of concern raised by teacher candidates include: large and unbalanced workload for assignments (i.e., large number of assignments overall, assignments are heavily weighted towards the end of the semester, some assignments have excessive demands for time and seem like “make work” assignments, and that there is little time to do readings or reflect on feedback), scheduling that includes long gaps with no classes (i.e., wasted time), inconsistent expectations (especially around planning assignments), and redundancy in course content and activities across each year and between years.
2.2 What is essential / foundational in Year 1?
The first year is teacher candidates’ introduction to the foundational aspects of education and the teaching profession. It is essential that teacher candidates have a strong foundation in planning and classroom management (currently Education 4350), but we believe separating the assessment piece from the 4350 or keeping planning and assessment together and separating classroom management into its own piece would be helpful (currently .5 FCE in Year 1). Second, teacher candidates require a strong foundation in the curriculum and instructional activities in each curriculum area). Currently, teacher candidates in Orillia take Education 4031 (Language Arts), 4032 (Mathematics), 4033 (Science and Technology), 4034 (Social Studies), 4035 (Visual Arts), and 4079 (Kindergarten), so 2.5 FCE in Year 1. Current foundational classes in Year 1 include Education 4351 (Educational Psychology, and Inclusive Education) and 4353 (Social Difference in Education), for 1.0 FCE, and, with Education 4398 (Student Teaching), this leaves .5 FCE that is usually taken as electives (or the Math Elective if teacher candidates have not passed the Math Competency Exam).
The working group suggests that we build on the strong emphasis on foundations in the first year by increasing Planning, Evaluation, and Classroom Management to .75 FCE (or create a separate classroom management or assessment course, as indicated in the previous paragraph), move Social Difference in Education to Year 2, and move Aboriginal Education to first year or Professional Practice because both provide such a valuable background for teacher candidates.
2.3 How do we build choice, specialization, and independence in Year 2?
Currently in the second year, teacher candidates in Orillia have a .25 FCE Planning and Management class (Education 4370), along with the Student Teaching Part 2. They take Curriculum and Instruction classes in Health and PE (4071), Language Arts (4072), Mathematics (4073), and Music, Drama, and Dance (.5 FCE), for 2.0FCE total. Other courses include Education 4359 (Aboriginal Education), 4373 (Professional Practice); 4374 (Environmental Education), 4375 (Democracy and Education), and Inclusive Education (4371), for 2.25 FCE, with Student Teaching Part 2 making the last .5 FCE.
The working group suggests that the planning and management course be increased to .5 FCE. We recommend moving all electives to second year and looking at whether some of the courses could be combined (such as Social Difference and Democracy and Education). We strongly recommend that some thought is given to creating track or streams that build on teacher candidates’ interests and provide specializations. Suggested streams would include: Outdoor Education / Experiential Learning Focus; STEM focus; Early Literacy focus; Social Justice & Democracy Focus; Advanced Media / Tech Focus; and Project-Based / Inquiry-Based Learning Focus. Any future electives or special courses designed should follow these streams. As such, then, we recommend that the cohort system be abolished in Year 2 to allow teacher candidates flexibility in scheduling.
2.4 Recommendations:
We suggest that teacher candidates be assigned a mentor teacher for the full year, which would also significantly reduce the demands on the Placement Officer and Professional Experiences Coordinator to secure as many placements. Candidates would attend the first day of class to meet the students and learn about routines, etc. They could do partial days (maybe 1 or 2 mornings or a morning and an afternoon, around the block schedule from part 2) each week, and we would reduce the length of the first placement block accordingly (giving a bit more time for courses). Another option is to extend MAP days into September and January and working on a schedule where ⅓ of first year cohorts have MAP days on Tuesday, ⅓ on Wednesday, and ⅓ on Friday (with this, you could also stagger the start of Year 1 classes because the placement block would be shorter). Greater time in the classroom, and earlier, builds rapport with the class and teacher, and would facilitate the ability to complete coursework such as lesson plans with that classroom in mind - situating the foundational year in the practice of teaching and building practical experience. The second placement block would be with the same class, but following the existing structure. In Year 2, it would be the same as it is now, with a primary/K and a Junior - or whichever was not experienced in Year 1 and the opportunity for an alternate placement as now exists. In the case of difficulties arising in the first year, a second mentor could be found, similar to our current structure.
3.3 How do we build choice, specialization, and independence in Year 2?
We like the Year 2 placement block as it is, although we recommend that any Kindergarten placements be delayed untilin Year 2, given the difficulties teacher candidates are experiencing transitioning from inquiry-based kindergarten classes to elementary classrooms. If the track system is adopted, the alternate placement could then be tailored to the stream tracks, if desired.
3.4 Recommendations:
4. Enhancing Professional Development and Leadership Opportunities
4.1 Summary of Teacher Candidate ConcernsProfessional development opportunities are not tied to course work. Some opportunities are duplicated in second year - in fact, if possible, keep PD in Year 1 to a minimum, reducing unnecessary PD. Candidates do not like the model of staying late for PD.
4.2 What is essential / foundational in Year 1?Aside from the bare minimum, there should not be as much PD in first year. PD related to orientation, field placements, etc., are fine, but they are not as prepared for the PD in the first year and it is not necessarily retained as well. Teacher candidates have said that they feel overwhelmed with course work in the first year, and PD adds to the burden if they do not perceive there to be a tangible benefit. PD should not be held at night for either Year 1 or Year 2. Also, they should not have only PD or 1 class plus PD in a day.
4.3 How do we build choice, specialization, and independence in Year 2?Teacher candidates are more prepared for PD in the second year and PD should focus on necessary knowledge for transitioning to the teaching profession such as resume building, interview skills, OCT requirements for certification, etc. They also see more benefit in other types of PD that build on their skills from coursework and placement. For example, the MediaSmarts PD opportunity last year was well received. PD should not be held at night for either Year 1 or Year 2. Also, they should not have only PD or 1 class plus PD in a day.
Additionally, we recommend the creation of a student governing body (such as ESTA), that would meet to provide feedback to the Orillia Program Chair as well as oversee events for the faculty, etc. This body might consist of an elected President (Year 2) and Vice President (Year 1); cohort reps from Year 1 classes and a similar number of elected representatives from Year 2.
4.4 Recommendations:
5. Conclusion and Next Steps
In the teacher education program, there are many things we are doing well and things we have begun to implement that have caused positive changes since the inception of the program. However, there are some problematic areas, including lack of communication/coordination and lack of scaffolding/sequencing.
Program cohesion within each year and across years is lacking. We see a model where the first year focuses on the foundational knowledge for teaching and the second year focuses on choice, specialization, and, especially, building independence. In order to do this, there needs to be scaffolding built into the program. Whether that is through coursework, through restructuring placements, or through building meaningful PD and leadership opportunities, there are many opportunities to build student voice and ownership in learning, as well as to provide opportunities for growth and leadership. We want to make the Lakehead University Faculty of Education the choice for Bachelor of Education students.
Proposal from the Faculty Working Group
led by Meridith Lovell-Johnston
with Alex Thomson, Linda Grant, Randy Hoover, Denise Calvert, Jennifer Copeland, & Gary Pluim
1. Overview
The Program Cohesion working group undertook the task of examining teacher candidates’ (and instructors’) concerns around program cohesion, sequencing, and load. One goal was to examine the in-class learning through courses and coursework, i.e., the progression from beginning of first year to the first placement; ways to use the second term to build carry-through from first semester, and ultimately, how to have flow through to a second year that is meaningful, builds on candidates’ previous experiences while reducing redundancy, and permits choice and differentiation. With this, we want to support a more balanced workload and scheduling. Our second goal was to examine ideas for supporting candidates on placement, i.e., ensuring that there are greater opportunities for situated learning (and links between coursework and placement to apply learning in authentic ways), as well as opportunities for mentorship and professional growth. Our third goal is to examine other learning opportunities, such as professional development opportunities, that are made available to teacher candidates to supplement their in-class learning. These key areas also support the work being done by the other two working groups around learning environment and andragogy.
In each section below, we summarize the concerns raised through consultation with or feedback from the Teacher Candidates. We discuss our vision for what is essential and foundational for first year teacher candidates as well as how to help transition candidates to young professionals through fostering choice, specialization, and independence in second year. Finally, we present specific recommendations for consideration.
2. Courses, Coursework, and Scheduling
2.1 Summary of Teacher Candidate Concerns
Key areas of concern raised by teacher candidates include: large and unbalanced workload for assignments (i.e., large number of assignments overall, assignments are heavily weighted towards the end of the semester, some assignments have excessive demands for time and seem like “make work” assignments, and that there is little time to do readings or reflect on feedback), scheduling that includes long gaps with no classes (i.e., wasted time), inconsistent expectations (especially around planning assignments), and redundancy in course content and activities across each year and between years.
2.2 What is essential / foundational in Year 1?
The first year is teacher candidates’ introduction to the foundational aspects of education and the teaching profession. It is essential that teacher candidates have a strong foundation in planning and classroom management (currently Education 4350), but we believe separating the assessment piece from the 4350 or keeping planning and assessment together and separating classroom management into its own piece would be helpful (currently .5 FCE in Year 1). Second, teacher candidates require a strong foundation in the curriculum and instructional activities in each curriculum area). Currently, teacher candidates in Orillia take Education 4031 (Language Arts), 4032 (Mathematics), 4033 (Science and Technology), 4034 (Social Studies), 4035 (Visual Arts), and 4079 (Kindergarten), so 2.5 FCE in Year 1. Current foundational classes in Year 1 include Education 4351 (Educational Psychology, and Inclusive Education) and 4353 (Social Difference in Education), for 1.0 FCE, and, with Education 4398 (Student Teaching), this leaves .5 FCE that is usually taken as electives (or the Math Elective if teacher candidates have not passed the Math Competency Exam).
The working group suggests that we build on the strong emphasis on foundations in the first year by increasing Planning, Evaluation, and Classroom Management to .75 FCE (or create a separate classroom management or assessment course, as indicated in the previous paragraph), move Social Difference in Education to Year 2, and move Aboriginal Education to first year or Professional Practice because both provide such a valuable background for teacher candidates.
2.3 How do we build choice, specialization, and independence in Year 2?
Currently in the second year, teacher candidates in Orillia have a .25 FCE Planning and Management class (Education 4370), along with the Student Teaching Part 2. They take Curriculum and Instruction classes in Health and PE (4071), Language Arts (4072), Mathematics (4073), and Music, Drama, and Dance (.5 FCE), for 2.0FCE total. Other courses include Education 4359 (Aboriginal Education), 4373 (Professional Practice); 4374 (Environmental Education), 4375 (Democracy and Education), and Inclusive Education (4371), for 2.25 FCE, with Student Teaching Part 2 making the last .5 FCE.
The working group suggests that the planning and management course be increased to .5 FCE. We recommend moving all electives to second year and looking at whether some of the courses could be combined (such as Social Difference and Democracy and Education). We strongly recommend that some thought is given to creating track or streams that build on teacher candidates’ interests and provide specializations. Suggested streams would include: Outdoor Education / Experiential Learning Focus; STEM focus; Early Literacy focus; Social Justice & Democracy Focus; Advanced Media / Tech Focus; and Project-Based / Inquiry-Based Learning Focus. Any future electives or special courses designed should follow these streams. As such, then, we recommend that the cohort system be abolished in Year 2 to allow teacher candidates flexibility in scheduling.
2.4 Recommendations:
- Review course offerings and sequencing to build first year as a foundational year and to facilitate choice and independence in second year
- Survey teacher candidates about what electives they want to see.
- Electives should be 18 hour and in one semester only.
- Balance workload and reduce redundancy through communication between instructors. For example, if Language and Mathematics are considered a block, then they should alternate their assignment due dates.
- Creation of the lesson plan repository to encourage consistency and scaffolding between classes and semesters.
- Include the High Leverage Practices and Essential Skills as core pieces of the program and scaffold learning opportunities
- Promote situated learning through lab school / partnership with a local weschool, similar to P Pods in Thunder Bay. This would reduce some of the space issue as well.
- Maintain the cohort system in Year 1, but consider the stream model for Year 2: Outdoor Education / Experiential Learning Focus; STEM/STEAM focus; Early Literacy focus; Social Justice & Democracy Focus; Advanced Media / Tech Focus; and Project-Based / Inquiry-Based Learning Focus
- Scheduling is a major roadblock. We suggest block scheduling in .5 FCE blocks. With the exception of C&I courses in Year 1 and LA/Math in Year 2, and of course, Planning and Evaluation; all courses should be single term only, which reduces the # of classes taken at once. Tie LA and Math togdshould perspective only with lots of descriptive feedback which could possibly be used for a PPLP and then the second placement would be formally assessed in our traditional way. [Is that something that is allowed under OCT?] Teacher candidates should not be going out to placement (delayed start) if they are at risk with the Essential Skills. Instead, perhaps there could be a two-week intensive course to help prepare at-risk students.
We suggest that teacher candidates be assigned a mentor teacher for the full year, which would also significantly reduce the demands on the Placement Officer and Professional Experiences Coordinator to secure as many placements. Candidates would attend the first day of class to meet the students and learn about routines, etc. They could do partial days (maybe 1 or 2 mornings or a morning and an afternoon, around the block schedule from part 2) each week, and we would reduce the length of the first placement block accordingly (giving a bit more time for courses). Another option is to extend MAP days into September and January and working on a schedule where ⅓ of first year cohorts have MAP days on Tuesday, ⅓ on Wednesday, and ⅓ on Friday (with this, you could also stagger the start of Year 1 classes because the placement block would be shorter). Greater time in the classroom, and earlier, builds rapport with the class and teacher, and would facilitate the ability to complete coursework such as lesson plans with that classroom in mind - situating the foundational year in the practice of teaching and building practical experience. The second placement block would be with the same class, but following the existing structure. In Year 2, it would be the same as it is now, with a primary/K and a Junior - or whichever was not experienced in Year 1 and the opportunity for an alternate placement as now exists. In the case of difficulties arising in the first year, a second mentor could be found, similar to our current structure.
3.3 How do we build choice, specialization, and independence in Year 2?
We like the Year 2 placement block as it is, although we recommend that any Kindergarten placements be delayed untilin Year 2, given the difficulties teacher candidates are experiencing transitioning from inquiry-based kindergarten classes to elementary classrooms. If the track system is adopted, the alternate placement could then be tailored to the stream tracks, if desired.
3.4 Recommendations:
- Remove requirement that first semester placement in Year 1 be formally assessed - instead, assess according to the Essential Skills with copious descriptive feedback.
- In order to build opportunities for mentorship and bridging practical learning with the theoretical learning, we recommend keeping teacher candidates in the same classroom (either grades 1-3 or 4-6) for the entire first year and modifying the placement block by building opportunities to visit classrooms several times a week.
- Keep Year 2 placement block the same.
- Communicate the benefits of having a mentee to Associate Teachers. Run PD for Associate Teachers so they know the requirements of the program and how to be effective mentors.
4. Enhancing Professional Development and Leadership Opportunities
4.1 Summary of Teacher Candidate ConcernsProfessional development opportunities are not tied to course work. Some opportunities are duplicated in second year - in fact, if possible, keep PD in Year 1 to a minimum, reducing unnecessary PD. Candidates do not like the model of staying late for PD.
4.2 What is essential / foundational in Year 1?Aside from the bare minimum, there should not be as much PD in first year. PD related to orientation, field placements, etc., are fine, but they are not as prepared for the PD in the first year and it is not necessarily retained as well. Teacher candidates have said that they feel overwhelmed with course work in the first year, and PD adds to the burden if they do not perceive there to be a tangible benefit. PD should not be held at night for either Year 1 or Year 2. Also, they should not have only PD or 1 class plus PD in a day.
4.3 How do we build choice, specialization, and independence in Year 2?Teacher candidates are more prepared for PD in the second year and PD should focus on necessary knowledge for transitioning to the teaching profession such as resume building, interview skills, OCT requirements for certification, etc. They also see more benefit in other types of PD that build on their skills from coursework and placement. For example, the MediaSmarts PD opportunity last year was well received. PD should not be held at night for either Year 1 or Year 2. Also, they should not have only PD or 1 class plus PD in a day.
Additionally, we recommend the creation of a student governing body (such as ESTA), that would meet to provide feedback to the Orillia Program Chair as well as oversee events for the faculty, etc. This body might consist of an elected President (Year 2) and Vice President (Year 1); cohort reps from Year 1 classes and a similar number of elected representatives from Year 2.
4.4 Recommendations:
- Reduce or remove all non-essential PD in Year 1, i.e., any PD that is not mandated by OCT or the Ministry. Workload in Year 1 is overwhelming for many Year 1 teachers and any non-mandated PD should be voluntary.
- Survey teacher candidates at end of Year 1 to see what they would like to have for PD in Year 2 and build some of those opportunities into the PD schedule around the other mandated PD from OCT and the Ministry.
- PD in Year 2 should have a strong focus on skills for transitioning to the profession of teaching.
- No PD opportunities should take place in the evenings.
5. Conclusion and Next Steps
In the teacher education program, there are many things we are doing well and things we have begun to implement that have caused positive changes since the inception of the program. However, there are some problematic areas, including lack of communication/coordination and lack of scaffolding/sequencing.
Program cohesion within each year and across years is lacking. We see a model where the first year focuses on the foundational knowledge for teaching and the second year focuses on choice, specialization, and, especially, building independence. In order to do this, there needs to be scaffolding built into the program. Whether that is through coursework, through restructuring placements, or through building meaningful PD and leadership opportunities, there are many opportunities to build student voice and ownership in learning, as well as to provide opportunities for growth and leadership. We want to make the Lakehead University Faculty of Education the choice for Bachelor of Education students.