3.1.a Collaboration Between Unit and School Partners
The collaboration between the unit and school partners occurs on many levels. To understand the relationship, it is important to know that since 2004, Qatar has been engaged in a systemic education reform. As the ideals of the reform have been realized, there have been many changes. Although the unit has remained intimately involved with education partners at all levels throughout this time period, the nature of those relationships has been somewhat dynamic as everyone in education adapts to emerging policy decisions.
Public schools in Qatar (K-12 only, as there is no preschool at this time) are known as Independent Schools because at the beginning of the reform they experienced considerable autonomy under a charter school model. That model has changed over time so that school administration, curriculum, and assessment are highly structured and managed by the Supreme Education Council (SEC), which functions similarly to a US Department of Education. There is no access to schools except by going through the SEC. Fortunately, the unit’s relationship with the SEC is at present and has always been highly collaborative. Faculty members of the unit serve on many of the SEC’s committees and thus have a voice in such issues as curriculum standards, professional standards for teachers and school leaders, educational technology, licensure, and professional development. The SEC provides partial or full scholarships for essentially all of the unit’s initial candidates, and thus is participatory in the design of the programs. The programs are designed to meet the Qatar National Professional Standards for School Teachers and Leaders as well as the unit learning outcomes and the standards of the special professional associations.
Education Partners Committee
Members of the SEC likewise serve on the unit’s Education Partners Committee, which serves as an advisory body to the unit. The Education Partners Committee meets twice a year to review all major decisions and to review the progress of candidates, programs, and the unit. The SEC is thus very active in sharing financial resources with the unit as the unit provides almost all the professional development for Independent Schools through the National Center for Professional Development (NCED), a center housed in the unit. The unit, in fact, is contracted to help develop staff members at the SEC (see NCED programs). Specialized staff members hired by the NCED provide most of the professional development, but faculty members from QU in each of the core disciplines serve as advisors. For example, faculty members in Masters in Educational Leadership developed and gave the training program for school leaders when the SEC initiated its school-based licensure program. When the SEC decided to give content tests to their in-service teachers, they contracted with the unit to develop these tests. Collaboration and resource sharing are thus very strong between the SEC and the unit. The outcomes of this collaboration are maintaining strong communication in a time of social and political change, moving forward on mutual goals, sharing expertise, and sharing resources. The overall goal of both the unit and the SEC is developing quality teachers for Qatar’s reformed school system, a goal that the close relationship between the two organizations fosters.
Schools where our student teachers in the B.Ed. programs and interns in the diploma programs complete their clinical experiences sign MOUs with the unit. The director of the Field Training Office keeps in close contact with the schools to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities and the unit’s responsibilities toward them. Administrators at the schools identify dates/times/locations for field hours and identify the best school mentors. The field training office works with the schools to ensure that the needs of both the schools and the candidates are considered in making placements. The system for the advanced programs differs somewhat, as candidates in these programs may have diverse career goals and/or be already working fulltime in schools. For that reason, candidates may suggest a mentor for their internship, in which case the supervisor investigates to determine the appropriateness of the placement. It is important to note that advanced candidates completing internships in schools in which they are employed must do something different from their regular jobs in the schools for it to qualify as an internship. School mentors and their administrator, if there is one, sign agreements prior to serving as mentors for the masters level students.
At this time, the unit has no individuals who are official designation as clinical faculty and no school-based faculty; rather, school faculty and administrators must apply to be mentors and must meet specific criteria. School-based mentors are essentially volunteers, although they receive a small honorarium from the unit. University faculty supervisors are regular faculty members with a specialty in the area of the concentration.
School mentors meet for an orientation early in each semester and receive extensive training. During these trainings, they are guided through each evaluation assignment and scoring instrument, and work with university supervisors so that there is a common understanding of all procedures and evaluations. There is no separate handbook for the mentors, but they are given the same handbook as the student teachers/interns, which is rather extensive. Each program has a separate handbook so that all information is specific for that program. During the training, the school mentors are given the opportunity to give their input on the policies, procedures, assessments, or any other concerns they have with the program. At the end of each clinical experience in the initial programs, the candidate evaluates the university supervisor and the school mentor, the university supervisor evaluates the school mentor, and the school mentor evaluates the university supervisor. These evaluations are turned in directly to the program coordinator. Only mentors who receive high evaluations are accepted as mentors in future clinical experiences. The evaluations for university supervisors become part of their annual faculty evaluations at the department level. The evaluation forms that the candidates complete and the instruments for all evaluations of the candidates are in the handbooks; the forms for the evaluation of the school mentor of the university supervisor and the evaluation of the university supervisor by the school mentor may be found in Exhibit 3.3.d (below).
School mentors collaborate in the planning of clinical practice at several levels. Representatives from the school mentors serve on the Education Partners’ Committee and thus advise at the policy and programmatic level. School mentors also contribute by their participation in the mentor orientation and training sessions as they react to and suggest revisions for specific activities, assessments, and procedures. They meet regularly with the university supervisor to discuss the candidates’ practice and progress. The school mentor and the university supervisor use the same form (the Clinical Experience Evaluation Survey) to evaluate the candidates at the mid-point of their clinical practice and at the end. At the mid-point, if a candidate is not performing satisfactory in any area, the school mentor and the university supervisor collaboratively develop a remediation plan (see remediation plans below). The school mentor is considered a full partner in the clinical experience of the candidates.
3.1.b Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical Practices
Initial Programs
The field experiences and clinical practice for all programs follows an emergent model in which candidates gradually assume full responsibility in an authentic context. Candidates in each of the B.Ed. programs have field hours in five courses prior to their clinical practice. Select foundational courses (two in the B.Ed. primary and three in the B.Ed. secondary) have six field hours each, arranged so that candidates have assignments of progressive difficulty, starting with reflective observation, followed by tutoring and small group work assignments. The methods courses (three in the B.Ed. primary program and two the B.Ed. secondary) have eight field hours each, a total of 36 field hours in the B.Ed. primary and 36 in the B.Ed. secondary. Most methods courses include a micro-teach assignment in which the candidate plans and conducts a lesson and assessment with students in a K-12 classroom. Because successful micro-teaching is a checkpoint (transition point) requirement, candidates who do not achieve satisfactory scores on the micro-teach in the methods course specified for each concentration are given feedback and another opportunity to demonstrate proficiency. A candidate who cannot achieve satisfactory level in the micro-teach will not receive a passing grade in the course and will not transition into clinical practice (student teaching or internship).
All diploma programs have field hours embedded in every course. Each education core course has six field hours, except the one-credit-hour course Qatari Schools and Society (EDUC 500), which has three hours, for a total of 27 field hours prior to clinical practice. Each course has a specific assignment to be carried out in the field that relates to that course (Exhibit 3.3.e1). In addition to the four core courses, each program has four program-specific courses with eight field hours each. The assignments in these field hours require small group work, tutoring, and/or micro-teaching. As in the B.Ed. programs, all candidates much receive a satisfactory level in micro-teaching before entering the culminating clinical practice. It is important to note that almost all diploma candidates are in-service teachers during the time they are taking the program; however, during the program they still must complete the field hour and internship assignments (see syllabi .)
Field experience in the Masters in Special Education program are distributed over four courses, two in the first semester and two in the second semester. SPED 602: Inclusive Education for Students with Disabilities includes six hours of observation in an educational setting that results in a written review of current educational policies and practices in special education and research-based suggestions for improvement. In SPED 603: Advanced Applied Behavior Analysis, candidates spend 10 hours over 10 weeks to gather data they use to design and implement lesson plans and interventions. In SPED 607 Characteristics of Mild/Moderate Disabilities, candidates observe an individual with reading difficulties and gather and analyze data and use that data to design an individualized education program plan and develop the instruction and assessment appropriate for that plan. Each activity is scored on a four4-point Likert-type rubric and is part of the course grade. These experiences total 26 hours in the field prior to internship.
In the Masters in Education, Educational Leadership program, candidates have 50 field hours prior to clinical practice. In EDEL 608: Issues in Education, the candidate is expected to apply supervision and instructional leadership knowledge and skills by developing a professional develop plan for a teacher in a K-12 school. The candidate, in collaboration with the building principal, observes an assigned teacher to determine professional development needs, develops professional development activities, and evaluates the effects of that interaction on teaching practice (20 field hours). The assignment in EDEL 609 (Action Research) requires candidates to apply research protocols to a problem in education related to student learning. The goal of the project is for them engage in scholarship and reflection in education as they identify and research a problem, analyze the results, and make recommendations to improve teaching and learning in that context. This experience is designed to help the candidates practice data based decision making in school leadership. Each activity is scored on a 4-point Likert-type rubric and is part of the course grade.
Clinical Practice
Clinical practice for all programs is a full academic semester. For initial programs, this includes a 40-hour seminar distributed over the semester in addition to the 300 hours of classroom experience completed over a minimum of 10 weeks. During the first two weeks, candidates do reflective (guided) observations, assist with classroom management tasks, and participate in co-planning and possibly co-teaching. In weeks three and four they begin to do independent planning and independent teaching with support as needed from the school mentor. Weeks five-nine, the candidate assumes full responsibility for teaching. The school mentor continues to check and approve lesson plans, observe teaching periodically, and give feedback. During week ten, the candidates remain in the classroom observing and assisting as the school mentor resumes responsibility for the classroom.
In the (masters level) programs for other school professionals the internship is more flexible. Candidates work with the program coordinator to identify a site appropriate to their career goals; for example, a K-12 school, the Supreme Education Council, or a learning center. Once a mentor has been approved, the candidate collaboratively designs an internship plan that will enable him/her to practice and demonstrate the required knowledge, skills, and dispositions of the program. The intern is responsible for periodic meetings with and reports to the coordinator. The experience is summarized in an extensive final report that details challenges and accomplishments and provides evidence of how the candidate demonstrated proficiency on the standards of the program.
The responsibilities for mentors and supervisors are detailed in Exhibit 3.3.c and also, for mentors only, in the handbooks (Exhibit 3.3.e2-9 listed below). In summary, the responsibilities of mentors include providing the range and depth of opportunities required for the candidate to practice and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of their programs and to provide support, evaluation, and feedback to the candidates. Supervisors are responsible for facilitating the placement, working with and supporting the candidate, the school mentor, and school administrators, as needed. They are to ensure that the candidate is getting the opportunities, feedback, and support they need for success. Supervisors are to visit the candidate regularly, collect and grade assignments, and provide evaluation and feedback to the candidate. School mentors and supervisors are responsible for identifying any deficiencies that would prevent the candidate from being a quality teacher.
Key assessments during clinical practice are linked to the unit’s seven unit learning outcomes from the conceptual framework, the Qatar National Professional Standards for School Teachers and Leaders, and the standards of the specialized professional organization(s) appropriate for that program. Key assessments include a unit plan, an assessment analysis project to evaluate their effects on student learning, a technology for learning assignment, and an e-Folio. A thorough observational evaluation (the CEES) is completed mid-term (for feedback) and at the end of the clinical practice by the school mentor and the college supervisor for all initial programs. The masters programs have similar evaluations that the mentors and supervisors complete. Exhibit 3.3.g provides data on candidate achievement on these measures. Note that a satisfactory or better score is required on each of the following for successful completion of the clinical experience (and thus, graduation): the unit plan, the e-Folio, and the CEES.
3.1.c Candidates' Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions to Help All Students Learn
Initial Programs
Candidates are expected to demonstrate a range of knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions at increasing levels of mastery throughout their field experience and clinical practice. These elements are assessed repeatedly in course assignments and also in the comprehensive CEES evaluation survey. The candidates’ e-Folios are expected to have evidence of and convincing rationales for knowledge, skills, and dispositions representing the expected competencies. A summary follows, although the CEES provide a more expanded description of expectations (Exhibit 3.3.g). These proficiencies are progressively developed and demonstrated during lesson planning, co-teaching, independent teaching, and classroom management.
Content knowledge. Candidates demonstrate clear and convincing evidence of accurate and thorough content knowledge in the disciplines that are appropriate to the levels of their program area. Candidates have the opportunity to demonstrate their content knowledge in lesson planning (starting early in their programs and throughout clinical experience) and in their micro-teaching and in co- and independent teaching. A demonstration of content knowledge also includes the selection of key concepts of the discipline and in ordering them appropriately for effective student learning. Because candidates are also scored on lesson plans throughout their programs on differentiation, selecting appropriate content and modifications these areas also reflect the disposition of fostering successful learning experiences for all students by addressing individual differences.
Knowledge of students. Candidates demonstrate an understanding of human development, learning, and motivation and plan instruction accordingly.
Knowledge of content-related pedagogy. Candidates select and use a range of effective pedagogical strategies that are appropriate for the content, the learner, and the context.
Instructional planning. Candidates plan instruction and assessment that reflects the curriculum standards (and IEP, if appropriate), students’ developmental levels, available resources, and the targeted content.
Establishing and Effective Educational Environment. Candidates are expected to demonstrate a student-centered philosophy of learning, ability to plan for and maintain effective classroom management, to foster critical thinking skills, and to provide opportunities for students to work collaboratively in multiple ways.
Effective Behavior Management. Candidates are expected to provide a clearly articulated behavior management plan that is clearly based on an understanding of child/human development and that rewards positive behaviors and to effectively enforce the plan in context.
Assessment. Candidates plan and conduct frequent, appropriate, and multiple formative and summative assessments; provides substantive, thoughtful analysis of assessment, and modify curriculum and instruction in response to results. Enforces fairness.
Technology for Teaching and Learning. Uses technology effectively for planning and classroom management. Engages students in using technology to gather, organize, share, and create knowledge. Knows about and effectively uses assistive and augmentive technologies to ensure learning opportunity for every students.
Diversity – Differentiation. Modifies content, instruction, and assessment as appropriate so that every student has an opportunity to learn.
Problem-solving, Selects strategies and resources that facilitate the development of students’ critical thinking and independent problem solving skills; selects topics and issues that require critical thinking; uses and models of critical thinking to solve problems. This criterion is demonstrated not only in lesson plans, but also in the reflections that candidates provide over the course of their clinical practice.
Scholarly Inquiry. Uses and engages in scholarly inquiry for positive change. This criterion is developed and most clearly demonstrated in scholarly papers and reflections the candidates write during their field experiences and clinical practice.
Ethical Values. Clear commitment to ethical values in relationships with students, including those with special needs or from diverse backgrounds, in relationships with supervisors and colleagues, in relationships with parents and community stakeholders, in activities related to school policies, and in activities related intellectual property (unauthorized usage and/or plagiarism). Although the practice and demonstration of ethical values shows up in some assignments and is discussed throughout the programs, to a large extent it is up to the candidate to relate how this have been demonstrated in field and/or clinical practice. This is a criterion on the e-Folio for which candidates must provide evidence and a rationale.
Initiative. Demonstrates creativity and leadership in initiating and managing positive changes in education. Actively seeks productive collaboration with families, colleagues, and community agencies. This is similar to ethical values, in that to a large extent, it is the candidate’s responsibility to provide evidence of this criterion.
Candidates in the programs for other school professionals have similar criteria, but they are directed more at leadership and management contexts rather than classroom contexts. For example, the criteria include: pedagogy as it relates to management of curriculum and instruction, pedagogy as it relates to supervision and instructional leadership, technology for personal and professional use, especially in data and school management, diversity as it relates to developing and sustaining policies that consider fairness, social justice, diversity, and multiple perspectives, and problem solving as it relates to policy and management. Content, ethical values and initiative are described similarly to those same criteria in the initial programs. As in the initial programs, these criteria are expected to be practiced throughout the programs in assignments, especially field-based assignments and to be demonstrated at mastery level in clinical practice.
The eight dispositions shared by all initial programs and the parallel dispositions of the programs for other school professionals center on ethical responsibility toward all stakeholders in education and the beliefs that all children can and should have the opportunity to do so. These dispositions are introduced early in the candidates’ programs through a self- assessment and an assessment either the program coordinator or an instructor in a core course (by program) to sensitize candidates expectations and to identify any areas of concern. They are discussed and modeled throughout the programs; however, because they are affective characteristics, they are thought to be best evaluated in context through a range of behaviors. For that reason, they are evaluated by the school mentor and by the university supervisor mid-point through practice to identify any areas of concern.
If, at the mid-point evaluation on the CEES or the programs for other school professionals evaluations a candidate is having difficulty with any of the required knowledge, skills, or dispositions, the school mentor and the university supervisor with the candidate complete a remediation contract to give the candidate an opportunity to improve before the end of clinical experience. Candidates must demonstrate satisfactory levels according to the program checkpoint requirements on knowledge, skills, dispositions, and professional practice to receive a passing grade in clinical practice. Exhibit 3.3.g provides tables showing assessment values for candidates in all programs.
3.2 Online Exhibits