•
Understanding of how the foci of unit faculty and MIS staff differ and how to
bridge the gap
•
Ability to begin the process of setting up such a system at one’s own institution
B. Methods
The session will involve discussion of the background and value of an integrated data
system and NCATE’s focus on the use of data for program improvement. Processes for
initiating the project and working with MIS will be described and possible pitfalls will be
shared. A laptop and LCD projector will be used to demonstrate the web-based system
and sample outputs. Participants’ questions will be answered.
References
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The politics of teacher education and the curse of
complexity. Journal of Teacher Education, 56 (3), 181-185.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing Teachers for a Changing
World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Earley, P. M. (2005). Meaning, silos, and high-stakes advocacy. Journal of Teacher
Education, 56 (3), 214-220.
Haycock, K. (2005). Choosing to matter more. Journal of Teacher Education, 56 (3),
256-265.
Hess, F. M. (2005). The predictable, but unpredictably personal, politics of teacher
licensure. Journal of Teacher Education, 56 (3), 192-198.
Lowe, V. & Banker, B. (2005, February). Meeting the NCATE challenge: Data analysis
for program improvement.
Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American
Association for Colleges of teacher Education, Washington, DC.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York:
Norton.
Wilkerson, J. R. & Lang, S. W. (2005, February). Measuring dispositions with
Practicality, utility, yalidity, and reliability in mind.
Paper presented at the Annual
meeting of the American Association for Colleges of teacher Education, Washington, DC.
Wilson, S. Floden, B. & Ferrini-Mundy, J. ( 2001). Teacher preparation research:
Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle: University of
Washington, Center for Teaching Policy.
Convention