Ohio Board of Regents ls program Review and Development 30 East Broad St., 36 Fl 

Download 1,35 Mb.
Date conversion26.03.2017
Size1,35 Mb.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   17

Academic Dishonesty, Plagiarism, and Cheating: The Division of Education adheres to Lake Erie College’s policies and procedures regarding academic honesty. Any act of academic dishonesty or cheating by a student seriously impugns the integrity of Lake Erie College and the student and will not be tolerated. Penalties for academic dishonesty will be imposed at the discretion of the individual faculty member. Any violation of academic standards may result in penalties up to and including expulsion. Any act of academic dishonesty, plagiarism, or cheating will result in the loss of points for that assignment. Any form of plagiarism may result in receiving zero (0) points for that assignment. Consult the Lake Erie College Student Success Planner for more details.

Disability Statement: Lake Erie College does not discriminate in its recruitment, admission or treatment of students. The College makes reasonable accommodations to ensure that the academic program is accessible to the greatest extent possible by all students with disabilities. In particular, the College adheres to the provision of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. It is the policy of the College to make services available for any student who, through a recent assessment, can document a disability. Students, however, must meet all eligibility requirements to be admitted.

It is the responsibility of students with disabilities to see available assistance at the College and to make there needs known. The students must meet with the Director of Health and Wellness. All assistance/accommodation is coordinated through the Director of the Student Success Center. While Lake Erie College will provide reasonable accommodations, academic success is the student’s responsibility. For a full description, please see your college catalog.

Late Work: Policies/penalties for submission of work past the due date are given in the grading rubric on page 7.
Grading Scale:























Below 60


Grades are determined on the following basis:

Dispositions by CS

Dispositions by CT

Final Performance by CS

Final Performance by CT








Professional Dispositions: All teacher candidates are expected to demonstrate the professional dispositions adopted by the Lake Erie College Education Division.

Instructor’s Statement: The Education Department may change this syllabus anytime. Students will be informed of these changes, but it is the responsibility of each student to be aware of these changes.


The Field Handbook is available online, via the Lake Erie College website. To access the Field I Handbook, click on Academics, Undergraduate, Education, Field Handbooks. You will be able to utilize the table of contents to find the data for required assignments.

Copy and paste the assigned handbook pages from the Lake Erie College website into MSWord™ and type the summaries of your observations. All work must be typed for submission. Use bulleted or numbered format, when writing several items for one category.

Each assignment will be given a specific number of points. The number of points will be divided by the total number of points possible, and calculated to a percentage. The percentage grade will be combined with the rubric shown on the next page to determine your final grade for the course. If you do not achieve a “B” or higher for this course, you will not be able to proceed to Field II.


Note: Candidates must receive a B or better in Field I to continue to Field II


Attend 8 seminars

Be on time to all 8 seminars

All assignments completed and typed

Complete 75-100 hours of observation

Teach 4 times with standards-based lesson plans submitted before observations

Lesson plan reflections turned in by/at next seminar

Final Dispositions Evaluation from cooperating teacher/s must have all categories as Acceptable or better. (Separate rubric)

Key Assessments for any courses you are taking/have taken that require a field component to carry them out. This will vary from student to student.




Student has attended 6 scheduled seminars and has contributed to the discussion during each seminar.

Student has attended 7 scheduled seminars and has contributed to the discussion during each seminar.

Student has attended 8 scheduled seminars and has contributed to the discussion during each seminar.

Late two times to seminar

Late one time to seminar

Always on time to seminar

Student has completed 100% of all assignments.

  • All assignments are typed

  • Two assignments were late

Student has completed 100% of all assignments.

  • All assignments are typed

  • One assignment was late

Student has completed 100% of all assignments.

  • All assignments are typed

  • All assignments are on time

Student has been on site 75-100 clock hours and has documentation of 4 poor (C) observations by the cooperating teacher.

Student has been on site 75-100 clock hours and has documentation of 4 fair (B) observations by the cooperating teacher.

Student has been on site 75-100 clock hours and has documentation of 4 satisfactory (A) observations by the cooperating teacher.

Student has been observed twice by the college supervisor

Student has been observed twice by the college supervisor

  • submitted two standards-based lesson plans but only one plan was submitted before the observation

Student has been observed twice by the college supervisor

  • submitted two standards-based lesson plans before observations

Reflections were more than two weeks late

Completed and turned in one reflection by/at the next seminar

Completed and turned in lesson plan reflections by/at the next seminar

Created in 2002; Modified in 2006, 2008, and 2010


Banner, James M. and Cannon, Harold C. (1997). The elements of teaching. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Basham, J. D., Israel, M., Graden, J., Poth, R., & Winston, M. (2010). A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO RTI: EMBEDDING UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING AND TECHNOLOGY. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 243-255.

Bausch, M. E., Ault, M., Evmenova, A. S., & Behrmann, M. M. (2009). Going Beyond AT Devices: Are AT Services Being Considered?. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(2),

Bernhardt, Victoria I. (1998). Data-Analysis for comprehensive school-wide improvement. Larchmont, New York: Eye on Education.

Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/BloomsT/index.htm and http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/bloomrev/index.htm

Bouck, E. C. (2007). Co-Teaching…Not Just a Textbook Term: Implications for Practice. Preventing School Failure, 51(2), 46-51.

BROWNELL, M. T., SINDELAR, P. T., KIELY, M., & DANIELSON, L. C. (2010). Special Education Teacher Quality and Preparation: Exposing Foundations, Constructing a New Model. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357-377

Carr, Judy F. and Harris, Douglas E. (2001) Succeeding with standards: linking curriculum, assessment and action planning. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Cartledge, G., Singh, A., & Gibson, L. (2008). Practical Behavior-Management Techniques to Close the Accessibility Gap for Students Who Are Culturally and Linguistically Diverse. Preventing School Failure, 52(3), 29-38.

Center for Curriculum and Assessment, Office of Curriculum and Instruction.(2004). Academic content standards: K-12. Columbus, OH, ODE. Also available at http://www.ode.state.oh.us/

Curwin, Richard L. & Mendler, Allen N. (1999). Discipline with dignity. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Dyal, A., Carpenter, L., & V. Wright, J. (2009). ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY: WHAT EVERY SCHOOL LEADER SHOULD KNOW. Education, 129(3), 556-560.

Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-Teaching: An Illustration of the Complexity of Collaboration in Special Education. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27.

Hoover, J. J., & Love, E. (2011). Supporting school-based response to intervention: A practitioner's model Council for Exceptional Children. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=57405584&site=ehost-live

Hoover, J. J., & Patton, J. R. (2005). Differentiating Curriculum and Instruction for English-Language Learners With Special Needs. Intervention in School & Clinic, 40(4), 231-235.

Jensen, Eric. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jimenez, T. C., Graf, V. L., & Rose, E. (2007). Gaining Access to General Education: The Promise of Universal Design for Learning. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 41-54

Kaff, M. S., Zabel, R. H., & Milham, M. (2007). Revisiting Cost-Benefit Relationships of Behavior Management Strategies: What Special Educators Say about Usefulness, Intensity, and Effectiveness. Preventing School Failure, 51(2), 35-45

King-Sears, M. E. (2008). Facts and fallacies: differentiation and the general education curriculum for students with special educational needs. Support for Learning, 23(2), 55-62

King-Sears, M. E. (2005). Are You Highly Qualified? The Plight of Effective Special Educators for Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(3), 187.

Lake Erie College Field I Handbook (Fall 2011).

Marchesani, R. J. (2008). The field guide to teaching: a handbook for new teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Marzano, Robert J., Pickering, Debra J., Pollock, Jane E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Murawski, W. W., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Response to Intervention, Collaboration, and Co-Teaching: A Logical Combination for Successful Systemic Change. Preventing School Failure, 53(4), 267-277

Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. (2008). 50 Ways to Keep Your Co-Teacher. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(4), 40-48.


Park, J. H., Alber-Morgan, S., & Fleming, C. (2011). Collaborating with parents to implement behavioral interventions for children with challenging behaviors. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(3), 22-30.

Palmer, Parker J. (1998). The courage to teach: exploring landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, California: Josey-Bass, Inc.

Peterson, Ralph. (1992). Life in a crowded place: making a learning community. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.


Reeves, Douglas B. (2001). Crusade in the Classroom. New York, New York: Simon and Schuster.

Roe, B. D., Ross, E. P. & Smith, S. H. (2006). Student teaching and field experiences handbook (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Ryan, J. B., Hughes, E. M., Katsiyannis, A., McDaniel, M., & Sprinkle, C. (2011). Research-based educational practices for students with autism spectrum disorders. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(3), 56-64.

Wong, Harry K. & Rosemary T. (1998). How to be an effective teacher: The first days of school. Mountain View, California: Harry K. Wong Publishers, Inc.

Wood, B. K., Ferro, J. B., Umbreit, J., & Liaupsin, C. J. (2011). Addressing the challenging behavior of young children through systematic function-based intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30(4), 221-232.


0 This assignment lacks a clear thesis, and the language is muddled and sometimes unclear. Errors in punctuation, spelling, grammar or usage are highly distracting.

1 Although this paper may have a recognizable and appropriate thesis, the assignment is poorly organized. The assignment is understandable, although the writing may be imprecise, trite or vague. Some sentences or passages may be so confusing that their meaning is not clear. Errors in punctuation, spelling, grammar or usage are distracting.

2 This assignment responds to the questions in an ordinary way. Although the assignment is basically well-organized, individual paragraphs may be weak or out of place. The assignment follows a logical plan and contains generally competent writing, although the language may at times be vague, imprecise or trite. Sentences may sometimes be awkwardly constructed, but their meaning will be clear. Errors in punctuation, spelling, grammar and usage are not highly distracting.

3 Although the assignment is generally well-organized, the paragraph structure may sometimes be disjointed. The assignment may have a few awkward passages and some errors in punctuation, spelling, grammar or usage, but these errors are not significant enough to distract the reader. The language at times may be too general; the paper lacks some of the insight in thought and/or precision in the writing of an “A” assignment.

4 This assignment is well-organized throughout, down to the individual paragraphs. Sentences are carefully crafted with virtually no errors in punctuation, spelling, grammar or usage. Words are accurately chosen; informal language, slang or dialect is used only when appropriate. The assignment is insightful and vivid. The writing is tight and effective throughout.





“To develop professional, knowledgeable, collaborative, and reflective educators who are committed to the diversity and development of all students.”

EDE/A/P/S 412 Early/AYA/Middle/Intervention Specialist Childhood Field Experience

Campus Supervisors TBA

Office Hours

Office: Garfield A13 440-375-7369

Seminars: 3:30 to 4:45 p.m. on alternate Wednesdays

Classroom: Garfield C10


This field is an intensive experience through which students will demonstrate their abilities to plan and execute lessons in social studies, science, reading, language arts, mathematics, and fine arts. They will demonstrate the use of technology in teaching and learning episodes. Students should be given the opportunity to practice in inclusive clinical settings that reflect culturally, linguistically and academically diverse systems.


Education Department Sequence: Prerequisite: A grade of B or better in Field I and successful completion of all requirements in Gate A.


Jones, Vern (2011). Practical Classroom Management. Boston, Massachusetts

Pearson Publishing.

Field Experience Field II Handbook (Fall 2011). Painesville, OH, Lake Erie College

The following performance expectations reflect the Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession.
Standard 1: Teachers understand student learning and development and respect the diversity of students they teach.

1.1 Teachers display knowledge of how students learn and of the developmental characteristics of age groups.

1.3 Teachers demonstrate the expectation that all students will achieve to their full potential.

1.4 Teachers model respect for students’ diverse cultures, language skills and experiences.

1.5 Teachers recognize characteristics of gifted students, students with disabilities and at-risk students in order to assist in appropriate identification, instruction and intervention.

Standard 2: Teachers know and understand the content area for which they have instructional responsibility.

2.1 Teachers know the content they teach and use their knowledge of content-area concepts, assumptions and skills to plan instruction.

2.2 Teachers understand and use content-specific instructional strategies to effectively teach the central concepts and skills of the discipline.

2.3 Teachers understand school and district curricula priorities and the Ohio academic content standards.

2.4 Teachers understand the relationship of knowledge within the discipline to other content areas.

2.5 Teachers connect content to relevant life experiences and career opportunities.

Standard 3: Teachers understand and use varied assessments to inform instruction, evaluate and ensure student learning.

3.1 Teachers know about assessment types, their purposes and the data they generate.

Standard 4: Teachers plan and deliver instruction that advances the learning of each individual student.

4.1 Teachers align their instructional goals and activities with school and district priorities and the Ohio academic content standards.

4.2 Teachers use information about students’ learning and performance to plan and deliver instruction that will close the achievement gap.

4.3 Teachers communicate clear learning goals and explicitly link learning activities to those defined goals.

4.4 Teachers apply knowledge of how students think and learn to instructional design and delivery.

4.5 Teachers differentiate instruction to support the learning needs of all students, including students identified as gifted, students with disabilities and at-risk students.

4.6 Teachers create and select activities that are designed to help students develop as independent learners and complex problem-solvers.

4.7 Teachers use resources effectively, including technology, to enhance student learning.

Standard 5: Teachers create learning environments that promote high levels of learning and achievement for all students.

5.1 Teachers treat all students fairly and establish an environment that is respectful, supportive and caring.

5.2 Teachers create an environment that is physically and emotionally safe.

5.3 Teachers motivate students to work productively and assume responsibility for their own learning.

5.4 Teachers create learning situations in which students work independently, collaboratively and/or as a whole class.

5.5 Teachers maintain an environment that is conducive to learning for all students.

Standard 6: Teachers collaborate and communicate with students, parents, and other educators, administrators and the community to support student learning.

6.1 Teachers communicate clearly and effectively.

6.3 Teachers collaborate effectively with other teachers, administrators and school and district staff.

Standard 7: Teachers assume responsibility for professional growth, performance and involvement as an individual and as a member of a learning community.

7.1 Teachers understand, uphold and follow professional ethics, policies and legal codes of professional conduct.


Lake Eire College’s education division encourages students to reflect on all aspects of their preparation for the teaching profession. Through curriculum and instruction in the college classroom, as well as field experiences, clinical practice, assessments, and evaluations, candidates are required to reflect on their practice. Through classroom discussion and sharing of their reflections, candidates are able to refine and improve their classroom practices.


Teacher candidates must log 75 hours in the field. By midterm (October 5, 2011), 37-40 hours of observation must be completed. Candidates are asked to keep a personal log of their time in the classrooms. The log will be due at the last seminar. If you are in a split placement, the first time log is due when your new placement begins.

Teacher candidates are required to teach a minimum of six lessons, in the areas of math, reading, language arts, social studies, science, or the fine arts. The cooperating teacher will evaluate six lessons and the college supervisor will evaluate two lessons. The two lessons observed by the supervising teacher can be the same lessons the cooperating teaching is evaluating. Lesson plans must be submitted to the cooperating teacher at least 24 hours in advance of the lesson to allow time to make adjustments. Copies of all lesson plans and evaluations validated by the cooperating teacher must be turned in to the college supervisor at the next seminar following the lessons taught. When the college supervisor is observing a lesson, a copy of the lesson plan must be e-mailed to the college supervisor, or presented to the supervisor before the lesson is implemented. A hard copy with reflections must be turned in at the following seminar.


  1. The Cooperating Teacher/s will submit to the Field Director:

  1. Confirmation of 6 observations and participation of a minimum of 75 hours logged. Signed logs will be submitted at mid-term (10/5/11), and at the conclusion of the course.

  2. Mid-Term and Final Evaluations of candidate’s dispositions;

  3. Final Evaluation of candidate’s performance; and

  4. Program Evaluation.

  1. The Campus Supervisor will submit to the Field Director:

a) Confirmation of 2 lesson evaluations;

  1. Final evaluation of candidate’s dispositions; and

  2. Final evaluation of candidate’s performance.

  1. Key Assessments for any courses the candidate is taking/has taken that require a field experience to complete. This will vary from student to student.

  1. Value Added Project

In addition to clinical experiences, the preservice/teacher candidate is required to complete assignments which are a part of the seminar.


  1. Teacher candidates will maintain a working reflective journal throughout the semester. This journal will be collected at each seminar. Correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation are expected. Journal entries are to be written in complete sentences, typed, and in narrative form. Other criteria are detailed in the attached sheet.

  1. Teacher candidates will complete the Value-Added Assessment project.

  1. Active participation in 8 Seminars is required. This includes all assignments.

  1. All assignments must be typed for submission.

  1. If you do not achieve a “B” or higher for this course, you will not be able to proceed to student teaching.

  1. All teacher candidates will maintain a professional demeanor as a representative of Lake Erie College.


Attendance is required for all students in all seminars. Attendance in school has been shown to have a direct impact on student learning. This is not only true in P-12 settings, but also at the college level. Each student is expected to maintain regular and punctual attendance. Each student is responsible for obtaining class notes and is responsible for all material covered (even if absent).

1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   17

The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2016
send message

    Main page