Comprehensive Proposals for Teacher Education [electronic resource] : A Concise Guide Derived from Donald R. Cruickshank's Study of Proposals for Second-Phase Comprehensive Elementary Teacher Education Models Project / Joel L. Burdin, Ed.
The proposals from 27 of the 34 applicants for Phase 2 of the Comprehensive Elementary Teacher Education Models (CETEM) Program were reviewed to determine, among other things 1) what kinds of institutions participated, 2) how responsive applicants were to guidelines, 3) which Phase 1 programs Phase...
Saved in:
| Online Access: |
Full Text (via ERIC) |
|---|---|
| Corporate Authors: | , |
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Electronic eBook |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
[S.l.] :
Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,
1971.
|
| Subjects: |
| Summary: | The proposals from 27 of the 34 applicants for Phase 2 of the Comprehensive Elementary Teacher Education Models (CETEM) Program were reviewed to determine, among other things 1) what kinds of institutions participated, 2) how responsive applicants were to guidelines, 3) which Phase 1 programs Phase 2 applicants found most useful, 4) what were some major and common features of Phase 2 programs, and 5) how applicants felt about Phase 2 competition. It was found that applicants were mostly state colleges and universities; that applicants varied considerably in how they responded to guidelines; but taken together they were strongest in describing programatic features; that the Phase 1 work of Michigan State, Syracuse, Massachusetts, and Florida State was most useful; that there was agreement on a host of teacher education program features; and that applicants felt Phase 2 competition was exhilarating but that whether or not there was fair competition was doubted. The conclusions drawn included that the process of teacher education curriculum needs a theoretical base before the profession can engage wisely and economically in curriculum reform; that Phase 2 applicants did provide a blueprint for teacher education requiring dissemination and support; and that USOE must plan more efficiently and communicate more effectively. (Author/MBM) |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | ERIC Document Number: ED049165. Sponsoring Agency: National Center for Educational Communication (DHEW/OE), Washington, DC. Contract Number: OEC-0-8-080490-3706(010). |
| Physical Description: | 48 p. |