ࡱ> U@ Wbjbj dthC>>>>Tnָָָn|nM2^nnn%%%MMMMMMM$ORRQ+M]("%((+M>>nn MHHH(>VnnMH(MH6H~q5<n P-nָD4Y8P?D M0M8FRxFR<nn>>>>FR<%hJH<%%%+M+Mnn\2aW,nn2aA Model and Conceptual Framework for Designing and Making Policy Decisions About the IPSB Teacher License Renewal System Richard Frisbie: 11/29/99 The model, conceptual framework and related topics addressed in this paper are intended to promote discussions about the future IPSB teacher license renewal process in terms of a teachers Professional Growth Plan, its implementation, and results. The fruits of these discussions can be used to develop specifications for future pilot tests and the eventual implementation of a rigorous, achievable and standards-based teacher license renewal system. A Model of Standards-based Student Success and Teacher Professional Growth The model of standards-based student success and teacher professional growth represented by the flowchart on the following page provides the basis for developing a conceptual framework and making subsequent policy decisions. It is based on expectancy theory, motivation theory, and organizational performance theory developed by people like Vroom, and Porter and Lawler, and in the context of the IPSB-adopted teacher standards. Using the IPSB terminology of knowledge, dispositions, and performances, (KDPs), standards-based teacher knowledge leads to standards-based teacher performances. These performances lead to standards-based student success. In a recent Phi Delta Kappan article, James Raths contends that some teacher standards have success connotations, meaning they have valued student outcomes imbedded within them. Standards-based student success can be measured directly against the relevant student standards as well. Of course, several factors mediate between teacher knowledge and performances, as well as between teacher performances and student success. Those factors most relevant to the conceptual framework are shown here. Expectancy theory suggests that a teachers knowledge of job expectations is a critical factor in determining how the teachers standards-based knowledge is translated into job performances. Two key sources of job expectations knowledge for a teacher will her or his own school improvement plan and related job responsibilities. The teachers dispositions toward teaching also will have a bearing on performances. Additional mediating factors can come between teacher knowledge and performances or between performances and student success. Some examples include the types and amounts of resources available to the teacher or the amount of instructional time the teacher and students have together. While many factors will have an impact on student success, this professional growth model focuses on improving standards-based teacher knowledge, dispositions, and performances as the primary means for the teacher to have an impact on improving student success. In 1997, the IPSB Continuing Education Work Group recommended the use of the Indiana Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (IACTE) Essential Characteristics of Professional Development, as one basis for judging the adequacy of Professional Growth Plans, their implementation and results. The conceptual framework places those Essential Characteristics within a broader perspective.  SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT  The Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework provides the guidance to implement the model through the development of a teacher license renewal Professional Growth Plan, its implementation and results. It is based on the combination of the June 19, 1997, recommendations of the IPSB Continuing Education Work Group, particularly Appendix III, Professional Growth Plan (PGP), and the decision-oriented educational evaluation model developed by Daniel Stufflebeam. The key elements of the Professional Growth Plan recommendations are organized around the key concepts of the program evaluation model. Where the work group recommendations do not have an element suggested by the program evaluation model, a placeholder for that element was added to the conceptual formwork. In summary, the decision-oriented program evaluation model used here has five dimensions. (1) Valued ends and means provide the basis for judging the adequacy of all aspects of the Professional Growth Plan, its implementation and results. The work group and the IPSB have identified standards (for teachers and students), the IACTE Essential Characteristics of Professional Development, and the Teachers School Improvement Plan as key sources for identifying valued ends and means. (2) Intended ends are referred to as goals in the work group recommendations. (3) Intended means are referred to as the planned Professional Growth Experiences (PGEs). (4) Actual means refer to what the teacher actually did. These experiences can be either planned or unplanned (from the perspective of the approved Professional Growth Plan). (5) Actual ends refer to what was or was not actually accomplished. These results also can be either planned or unplanned from the perspective of what was documented in the PGP. A flowchart and table are presented here to represent the conceptual framework and the relationships among its key elements. The flowchart shows the primary logical relationships and dependencies among these elements. The table is used to summarize how the elements could be in a set of basic report formats over the course of the license renewal period. Valued Ends and Means As noted above, the Board and the Continuing Education Work Group identified several key sources of valued ends and means. The IPSB-adopted teacher standards are paramount in this area. These standards primarily focus on valued knowledge, dispositions and performances (KDPs) of practicing teachers. The teacher standards are considered to be instrumental in achieving student success. The teacher standards also offer or suggest linkages to KDPs of the teachers students and other members of the teachers learning community. In addition, the Board has taken the position that the applicable student standards should drive and guide the teacher standards. The student standards provide the criteria for determining student success and, therefore, the referent criteria for determining teacher quality. The work group also identified the IACTE Essential Characteristics of Professional Development and the School Improvement Plan where the teacher works as other key sources for judging the adequacy of a teachers Professional Growth Plan. The teachers role in implementing the School Improvement Plan would be of particular interest here. Intended Ends The PGP typically will have two to four goals for a school year. These goals might or might not carry over to the following year. The goals should focus on growth in the teachers own knowledge, dispositions and/or performances. The goals also should address the impact on the teachers students KDPs, and possibly, the impact on others in the teachers learning community. Goals that focus on the teachers own KDPs are intended to be instrumental to student success. The instrumental criteria for judging these goals would be the applicable teacher standards. Goals that focus on student KDPs directly address student success. The referent criteria for judging these goals would be the applicable student standards. The teacher is expected to make the connections to the relevant sources listed above to justify the importance and relevance of the goals included in the plan. Because every PGP will reflect the unique needs and aspirations of the practicing teacher who develops it, a state-wide standardized assessment framework for all PGPs is inappropriate. This apparent dilemma actually is a strength of the PGP design. By requiring the development of an individualized assessment framework, this exercise should be invaluable to the practicing teacher as a general skill that also can be applied to her or his classroom setting. Even though the assessment framework should reflect the unique characteristics of a teachers PGP, it still can be based on a rigorous, IPSB-approved structure. For example, all assessment frameworks should be required to include key features necessary to support and further the mission of the Board, to establish and maintain rigorous, achievable standards for educators. This can be accomplished by requiring the assessment framework to include references to specific knowledge, dispositions, and/or performances in teacher standards or related student standards for each goal. An expected attainment level also should be required to ensure the teacher is pursuing a sufficiently high level of proficiency and growth for that particular teacher. The growth expectation requires the teacher to design an assessment framework that can demonstrate an improvement toward goal attainment over time. As noted in the previous discussion of the model of standards-based student success and teacher professional growth, several factors can mediate the teachers efforts and actual goal attainment. The teacher should be able to anticipate some of the more important mediating factors and document them as part of the assessment framework, so that they can be used to help interpret the results after the Professional Growth Plan Experiences have been completed. Finally, identifying evidence sources as part of the assessment framework increases the likelihood that sound conclusions and reflections can be drawn from the fruits of the experiences. The standards-based, goal-directed assessment framework can be summarized in the goals section of the PGP. Intended Means The intended means are summarized as one to four basic Professional Growth Experiences (PGEs) from the IPSB approved list. Examples of some possibilities are included with the work group recommendations. The connections to how these particular PGEs will be instrumental to the attainment of the stated goals should be clearly stated in the plan. Actual Means At the end of a school year and/or a licensing period, the teacher will have completed various professional growth experiences. Some of these experiences will have been included in the plan, some will not. At this point, the teacher should provide a summary of the planned experiences, making connections with the previously identified supporting evidence. Because no plan can anticipate all future possibilities, the teacher should not be precluded from discussing other relevant experiences, simply because they were not part of the original plan. However, connections to the appropriate goals or some other important unanticipated results should be made. Actual Ends In conjunction with discussions of the experiences, discussions of the actual results should be presented. These results can be discussed from several perspectives. First, a presentation about goal attainment in the context of the previously established goals and assessment framework should be made. In addition, other important unanticipated results might have occurred. The teacher should have the opportunity to discuss these results. In order to do this with the same rigor as the discussion of goal attainment, the supporting connections to valued standards and/or other key sources, with an accompanying assessment framework, should be presented here. While discussions of goal attainment and other important unanticipated results are important, they can have a tendency to appear fragmented and disconnected from a larger perspective. Because of this, holistic discussions of the impact of the entire Professional Growth Experience should be presented. These discussions should reflect on the most important aspects of why such a set of what were most likely very intense experiences was pursued at all. A holistic reflection on student learning allows the teacher to focus on the ultimate criterion for determining the success of any educational enterprise. A holistic reflection on teaching allows the individual to focus on her or his own professional practices. A reflection on future professional growth allows the teacher to set the stage for the next Professional Growth Plan, thus completing the cycle and reinforcing her or his commitment to being a life-long learner. Flowchart of the Conceptual Framework for the IPSB Teacher License Renewal Professional Growth Plan, Its Implementation and Results Valued Ends (Referent Criteria)  and  Valued Means (Instrumental Criteria) (Student Viewpoint) Student Standards| | %  Self StudentsOthersEssential Professional Development CharacteristicsSchool Improvement PlanTeacher Standards | | %| | %| | % | | % | | %| | %Intended Ends (Teacher Viewpoint)(Referent and Instrumental) Goals!Assessment Framework | | %Intended Means Planned Experiences | | %Actual Means (Planned & Unplanned)Completed Planned ExperiencesOther Relevant Experiences | | | | | | %| | %| | % | | | %| | | % | %| %Actual Ends (Planned & Unplanned) Goal AttainmentImportant Unanticipated Results!Assessment Framework | | %| | % | | % | | %| | %| | %Holistic Reflection on Student LearningHolistic Reflection on TeachingHolistic Reflection on Future Professional Growth Report Sections for the Professional Growth Plan, Its Implementation and Results Based on the Conceptual Framework for the IPSB Teacher License RenewalConceptual FrameworkReport SectionsTopicsAllowed Elements (When Restrictions Apply)Required Connections (Validation Process)Valued Ends and MeansNo Separate SectionStudent Standards Teacher Standards Essential Professional Development Characteristics School Improvement PlanIntended EndsGoals (Referent: student based, Instrumental; teacher based) (Annual, Cumulative)2-4 Goal Statements (Annually, May Carry Over) Connections to Standards (Teacher, Student) Connections to Essential Professional Development Characteristics Connections to School Improvement Plan & Related Job Responsibilities Assessment Framework Selected KDPs Expected Attainment Anticipated Mediating Factors Evidence SourcesGoals: Standards-Based Growth in Teachers Own Knowledge, Dispositions &/or Performances (KDPs) Impact on Students KDPs Impact on Others KDPs Approved Types of EvidenceConnections to Standards Standards References Teacher KDPs Student KDPs Others KDPs Connections to Essential Prof. Development Characteristics Connections to School Improvement Plan & Related Job ResponsibilitiesIntended MeansPlanned Experiences1-4 Professional Growth Experiences Connections to GoalsApproved Types of ExperiencesConnections to GoalsActual Means (Planned & Unplanned For This Plan)Completed ExperiencesSummary of Planned Experiences Supporting Evidence Summary of Other Relevant Experiences (Optional) Connections to Goals or Important Unanticipated Results Supporting EvidenceApproved Types of Experiences Approved Types of EvidenceConnections to Planned Experiences, or Connections to GoalsActual Ends (Planned & Unplanned For This Plan)Results & ReflectionsSummary of Goal Attainment Recap of Goal & Assessment Framework Supporting Evidence Conclusions & Reflections Summary of Important Unanticipated Results (Optional) Summary of Results Connections to Standards, Professional Development Characteristics, School Improvement Plan Assessment Framework Supporting Evidence Conclusions & Reflections Holistic Reflection on Student Learning Holistic Reflection on Teaching Holistic Reflection on Future Professional GrowthApproved Goals & Assessment Framework Approved Types of Evidence References to Standards, Essential Professional Development Characteristics, and/or School Improvement PlanConnections to Goals & Assessment Framework, or Important Unanticipated Results (Good or Bad Related to Standards, Professional Development, and/or School Improvement Plan) Options for the Relicensing Decision A Generalized Policy Assertion Even though this conceptual framework requires a rigorous self-assessment by the teacher, the Board still has much flexibility in how the relicensing decision can be made. However, the processes for making this relicensing decision should be based on clear policy positions related to a number of key factors. Because of the complexity of the issues involved, a method for organizing and analyzing the policy options should be helpful in making the policy decisions. The following diagram represents one way to organize some of the key factors. The diagram is based on a technique using a transformational grammar notation system for the thematic analysis and development of policy assertions. Very simply, the notation system works like this, represent general concepts that can be replaced with more specific concepts in order to complete the statement. The diagram includes a generalized policy assertion about what criteria should be used to assess, verify, or make accountability decisions about teacher quality and teacher educator quality. As such, some of the concepts included in the diagram go beyond the scope of policies related to teacher relicensing decisions. One advantage of this approach is that the decision in question is placed in a broader context, allowing for important comparisons and contrasts. The generalized policy assertion includes replaceable terms related to assessments about student success, teacher quality and teacher educator quality. These assessments can be based on different criteria, and they can be conducted by different people. In addition, these assessments can be verified in different ways by different people. After the assessments are completed and verified, several different types of accountability decisions can be made by different people about programs, personnel, or licensure. Accountability decisions can be made about educational programs, personnel or licensure. The programs can be based in schools and school districts, teacher education programs, or teacher licensure systems. The IPSB has authority to make accountability decisions related to teacher education programs (accreditation decisions) and its own teacher licensure system. The personnel accountability decisions identified here would be based in schools and school districts. They would be related to matters like the selection, retention, and advancement of teachers. The licensing decisions can take place at various stages of a teachers career, including the initial license, a license bestowed at the end of an induction period, and periodic renewals from that point forward. The IPSB has the authority to make these and other educator licensure decisions. The presumption of this discussion is that all accountability decisions should be based on assessments that are themselves based on standards. These standards supply the criteria for making assessment judgments. For all educational enterprises, student success should form the basis for determining the ultimate success of everything else. As such, student success standards supply the referent criteria for assessing other aspects of the educational enterprise that are instrumental to student success. A basic model of this relationship already has been presented in this paper. For the policy analysis discussion presented here, the model is simplified and expanded to assert that teacher educator quality leads to teacher quality, which leads to student success. The instrumental and referent criteria all include the KDPs for the people involved. In addition, teacher quality criteria and teacher educator quality criteria should include items about their respective impact on student success. This has been referred to as the value added criterion in education policy debates. Finally, teacher educator quality should include items about the impact on teacher quality. Based on these instrumental and referent criteria, teacher Professional Growth Plan (PGP) goals can be categorized into two basic types, instrumental goals based on the teachers own or colleagues KDPs, and referent goals based on the teachers students KDPs. By this account, every PGP would need at least two goals, at least one instrumental goal and at least one referent goal. These goals also can be categorized in other ways that will be discussed shortly. Assessments of student success, teacher quality, or teacher educator quality that are based on the above goals and criteria can be organized around three basic types of questions. One type of questions is based on the KDPs for the individual(s) being assessed. Additional sets of questions are based on the impact of teachers or teacher educators on student success. The third type of question is based on the impact of teacher educators on teacher quality. Finally, someone has to complete all the assessments, verifications, and policy decisions. From the perspective of the teacher, they can be self- or other-based. From the perspective of the teachers school or school district, these actions can be internal or external. A Generalized Policy Assertion About What Criteria Should Be Used to Assess, Verify or Make Accountability Decisions About Teacher Quality and Teacher Educator Quality should use about , or , as , in order to make , , . ** Note. General terms in may be replaced by more specific terms in order to generate specific policy assertions. Accountability DecisionsPrograms School, District Teacher Education* Licensure*Instrumental CriteriaInstrumental CriteriaReferent CriteriaPersonnel Selection Retention AdvancementTeacher Educator QualityTeacher QualityStudent Success(Knowledge Dispositions Performances Impact on Teachers Impact on Students(Knowledge Dispositions Performances Impact on Students(Knowledge Dispositions Performances Licensure Initial* Induction* Renewal*Possible Types of Professional Growth Plan Goals* The IPSB has authority to make these decisionsInstrumental GoalsReferent GoalsTeacher KDPs Growth Goal Attainment CompetencyStudent KDPs Growth Goal Attainment Competency / / Assessment Questions:To what extent did / / show growth, goal attainment and/or competency in knowledge, dispositions, and/or performances? To what extent was / instrumental to student success? To what extent was instrumental to teacher quality? Teacher Quality , or by: self / , / .StateDistrictSchoolSelf Making the Relicensing Decision As stated in the previous section, even though this conceptual framework requires a rigorous self-assessment by the teacher, the Board still has much flexibility in how the relicensing decision is made. For example, the teachers self-assessment will be related to teacher quality in that it will be professional growth process-oriented, competency-oriented, goal-attainment oriented, and growth-oriented. It also will be student success-oriented. These possibilities derive from the model and conceptual framework. The teacher relicensing decision could be based on any one or any combination of these options. The teachers license would be renewed based on professional growth process-oriented criteria if she or he followed the process suggested by the model and conceptual framework, as determined by whomever is designated by the Board to verify these process criteria were met. The assumption in this case is that a good process leads to good results. This particular process requires the teacher to assess the results, but an independent verification of the results is not assumed within these criteria. Competency-oriented criteria would be met if the teacher achieved pre-established minimal competency levels for the relevant teacher standards. Such minimal competency levels are presumed to exit in order to judge the adequacy of expected attainment levels for selected goals. These minimal competency levels could come from several sources, such as the teachers Professional Growth Team as part of the Professional Growth Plan approval process, the teachers school corporation, or the IPSB. Goal attainment-oriented criteria would be met if the teacher actually reached the expected attainment levels identified for each goal in the assessment framework section of the Professional Growth Plan. When expected attainment levels are set to minimal competency levels, the competency-oriented and goal attainment-oriented criteria would be identical. For most of the goals in a Professional Growth Plan, we hope expected attainment levels would be set higher than the minimal competency levels. Growth-oriented criteria would be met if a teacher attained a pre-established amount of improvement during the relicensing period. The Professional Growth Plan design presumes this orientation. A focus on growth could be addressed in several ways. Specific goals could be written with this orientation by explicitly describing the desired change. The assessment framework most certainly should describe how the assessment did or will collect pertinent evidence over time. Any teacher quality goal should be validated, in part, based on the teachers current level of attainment in relation to that goal. A comparison of the expected attainment at the end of the assessment period to this current attainment level determines the degree of expected growth. These growth-oriented criteria should come from the same sources noted above, the teachers Professional Growth Team, the teachers school or corporation, or the IPSB. Student success-oriented criteria would be met if pre-established levels of standards-based student success were reached. These criteria should be covered in specific goals. They also would be covered in the holistic reflection on student learning. Once again, the student success-oriented criteria could come from the teachers Professional Growth Team, the teachers school or corporation, or the IPSB. Clearly, the options available to the IPSB for making the relicensing decision are extensive, if not overwhelming. In order to maximize the potential for self-improvement, a rigorous self-assessment conducted by the teacher should address all of the criteria noted here. However, determining which of these criteria should be used to help make the teacher relicensing decision should be based on what best meets the interests of the state, given the need to address several counterbalancing factors. While using all of the above criteria to help make the relicensing decision would be ideal, three key fairness and logistical issues should be considered. First, the best way to ensure fairness would be for the IPSB to establish all criteria to ensure better consistency across the state. This would be the case for the professional growth process-oriented criteria. Second, in order to ensure statewide consistency for the remaining types of criteria, the IPSB would have to conduct standard-setting activities analogous to what the Board would do to establish cut scores on instruments like the Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST). Once established, an independent assessment also should be conducted in order to verify these criteria have been met. Such a process would be extremely labor intensive and expensive to initially set the criteria and to operationally maintain the system over the years. The costs of such a system could well outweigh the added benefits of using these criteria to make a relicensing decision. Third, as reflected by the generalized policy assertion, the teacher relicensing decision is only one type of accountability decision. If the Board or other policy makers have more specific concerns about teacher quality or student success, perhaps those concerns would be better addressed through program evaluation processes, rather than through a teacher relicensing process. For example, if the teacher relicensing process were to be used as a mechanism to collect and evaluate state-wide student success, and subsequently, state-wide teacher quality and/or state-wide teacher educator quality, clear operational definitions of student success should be developed. These referent criteria could then be used as the basis for a program evaluation design that involves sampling and other methods that would not be appropriate for individual teacher relicensing decisions. This paper has been used to set up and support the argument that a well-designed and implemented professional growth process-oriented approach to making the relicensing decision can be used to strongly expect and support experiences that will lead to teacher quality and professional growth. Using the generalized policy assertion concepts, this would be an external accountability teacher relicensing decision based on a teacher self-assessment that was verified through a process internal and/or external to the school corporation. The model andyzZ [ T U V 4 B R ST {?Xvwxy~zzzzh`]h"D"%% %%%%%%%%%%6&D&_&`&&xh0Ch%>*CJaJh0Ch%CJaJh0Ch'CJaJh0Ch%6>* h0Ch x4 h0Ch%h0Ch%>* h0Chh hc>* hc5hchw he6 he5heh2 hA6 hA>* hA5hAh&/&&))m*+++++D,_,`,a-b-c-q-r--....N0P0006181u1114a6d677888889999999ϼzh.6hCCJaJh`hCCJaJh]FQhCCJaJh]FQhC5CJaJh]FQhC5hC hrN>*hrNh; h;5 h_>* h_5h_h@' h655h65h}T@h`h hR hc,>*hc, h0Ch0.t1u114477888888888Pkd$$Ifl@)) ` t )644 lap $$Ifa$gdNir  !$gd x4  !$]gd x488888889@kd?$$Ifl֞WG @) : 3  t)644 la $$Ifa$gdNir969^9`9b999999 $$Ifa$gdNir 99999999K?????? $$Ifa$gdNirkd}$$Ifl4֞WG @) : 3 t)644 la9999999?6 $IfgdNirkd$$Ifl4֞WG @) : 3  t)644 la $$Ifa$gdNir9999999999L:N:~: $$Ifa$gdNir $IfgdNir 999~:::::::: ;";|;;;;;<T<V<r<t<6=8=|=~=====J>^>>>>>??0?2?6?^?d?f???????@@@@k@l@@@̦hh5 hA5 h5hAh]FQh1 @CJaJh1 @hCCJaJh`hC>*CJaJh]FQhCCJaJh]FQh}CJaJh`hCCJaJh.6hCCJaJhCCJaJ:~:::% $$Ifa$gdNirkdO$$Ifl4 WG  @): 3  t)6$$$$44 la::::::::?kdX$$Ifl4֞WG @) : 3  t)644 la $$Ifa$gdNir::::::::::::::: $$Ifa$gdNir:::::::L@@@7@ $IfgdNir $$Ifa$gdNirkd5 $$Ifl֞WG @) : 3  t)644 la:::::::;;; ;]kds $$IflrWG &$@) t)644 la $IfgdNir $$Ifa$gdNir ;;;;;;; ; $$Ifa$gdNir ;";kd[ $$IflִWG &$@) :  t)6    44 lapP";>;f;h;;;;;;; $$Ifa$gdNir ;; kd, $$IflִWG &$@) :  t)6    2 44 lapP;;;;;;;;;;;; $$Ifa$gdNir ;<kdh$$IflִWG &$@) :  t)6    44 lapP<< <"<J<L<N<P<R<T< $$Ifa$gdNir T<V<kd+$$IflִWG &$@) :  t)6    44 lapPV<X<Z<\<`<d<h<j<l<n<p<r< $$Ifa$gdNir r<t<kd4$$IflִWG &$@) :  t)6    44 lapPt<<<<<0=2=4=6= $$Ifa$gdNir6=8=kd$$IflִWG &$@) :  t)6    44 lapP8=:=<=>=B=F=J=N=R=V=Z=^=b=f=h=j=n=r=v=x=z=|=~=====Ff' $IfgdNir $$Ifa$gdNir============================Ff $$Ifa$gdNir=======$>&>(>H>J>^>>>>Ff" $$Ifa$gdNir>>>>>>>F::::: $$Ifa$gdNirkdw%$$Ifl4֞WG @) : 3  t)62 44 la>>>>>>>> $$Ifa$gdNir>>>>>>>>K?????? $$Ifa$gdNirkdD'$$Ifl4֞WG @) : 3 t)644 la>>>>>>>? $$Ifa$gdNir?? kd|($$Ifl4 WG  &$@) t)6((((2 44 la???? ??????"?$?(?,?0? $$Ifa$gdNir0?2?4?6?f????K?????? $$Ifa$gdNirkd)$$Ifl4֞WG @) : 3  t)644 la???@@@?:gdCkdS+$$Ifl4֞WG @) : 3  t)644 la $$Ifa$gdNir@@l@@@@@@@@m____Q !$$Ifgd !$$Ifgd x4wkd -$$Ifld88 ` t 0644 lap $ !$$Ifa$gdA  !$gd x4 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ A AA A4A5A6AKALA_A`AqArAAAAAAA1B2B`BaBbBBB8CKCLCzC{CCCʿʿyhc1!CJaJhhoCJaJhoCJaJhgCJaJhh0xCJaJhACJaJh0xCJaJhi wCJaJhhACJaJhCJaJhhA5CJaJhh5CJaJhA5CJaJh5CJaJhA.@@ A A5A6ALA=kdq-$$Iflr( !x-d8  t0644 la !$$Ifgd x4LA`ArAAAAAA & F h!$|$If^`|gdew\ !$$Ifgd x4AAA2BK== !$$Ifgd x4kd.$$Iflr( !x-d8  t0644 la2BaBBBC*C8CLCjC{CCCC D & F !$-$If^`-gd & F !$$If^`gdew\ & F !$|$If^`|gdew\ & F h!$|$If^`|gdew\ C%D&D>D?DTDDDD E EEEBECEWEXEuEvEEEEEEEEEE9FFFFFFFF¾ݛͫ݀xm݈bZh #4CJaJhhgiCJaJhhew\CJaJhew\CJaJh CJaJhgiCJaJhhg]CJaJhg]CJaJhi wCJaJhhACJaJhCJaJhAhhwU`CJaJhwU`CJaJh%CJaJhACJaJhc1!CJaJhhCJaJhCJaJ# D&D?DTDaDnDzDDD & F w!$$If^`gdwU` & F w!$$If^`gdwU` & F !}$}$If^}`gdew\ & F !$$If^`gdDD EEK== !$$Ifgd x4kd.$$Iflr( !x-d8  t0644 laECEXEvEE & F h!$|$If^`|gdwU` & F h!$|$If^`|gdgi & F h!$|$If^`|gdew\EEEEK== !$$Ifgd x4kdZ/$$Iflr( !x-d8  t0644 laEEF9FqFFFFFFkkOO & F !$|$If^`|gd #4 & F !$|$If^`|gdgi & F !$|$If^`|gdew\ & F !$|$If^`|gdew\ & F !$|$If^`|gdew\ & F h!$|$If^`|gdew\ FFFFF,G-GBGCG]G^GGGGII9I:IIIIImJnJoJpJJJJJJJK,NPRR Tξ|xt|totkgcgchgGoh hL hs >*hs hrN hs 5hkhhCJaJhCJaJhh-JCJaJh-JCJaJhh+0CJaJh+0CJaJh CJaJhi wCJaJhhACJaJhCJaJhAhh #4CJaJh #4CJaJhACJaJ%FF-GCGK== !$$Ifgd x4kd/$$Iflr( !x-d8  t0644 laCG^GGGGGGVHkHHHHHIsss & F !$$If^`gd+0 & F !_$t$If^t`gd+0 & F !$$If^`gd  & F !t$t$If^t`gd  & F h!$|$If^`|gd I:IUIIInJ & F !$|$If^`|gd=9 & F !$$If^`gdginJoJpJJJKA4*  !$gds $ !$a$gds  !$gd x4kd0$$Iflr( !x-d8  t0644 laJJKK,N-NPPRRbUcU Z Z[[]]^^_g_$ !$$Ifa$gdbH  !$gds  TITcU=V@VZ Z[]]]^^^f_g_h_o___U`V`W```````4a5a?aUaValamaaaaaaǿӺǯxmmh7lh6CJaJhCJaJh7lh4CJaJh7lh45CJaJhCJaJhp#+CJaJhLjCJaJhLjhLjCJaJ hLj5hLjhLj5hbHhbHhbH5 hbH5 hrThbHhxh7hp#+hJW hrT>*hrThgGoh \j'g_h___V`yyy$ !$$Ifa$gdbHtkd=1$$Ifl*+ ` t 0644 lap V`W`````````` !$$Ifgds  !$gds ekd1$$Ifl*+ t0644 la ``aa8** !$$Ifgds kd1$$If@֞p ">*pX ` t 644:4ap aaa*a+a6a7a8a9a:a;aa?a9+ !$$IfgdNir !$$Ifgds kd13$$If@4֞p ">*`pX t644:4ap?aUaValamaaaaaaaaaaaaa$ !$$Ifa$gdNir !$$IfgdNir !$$IfgdP & F! h!x$x$If^x`gdP !$$Ifgds Ff@7$ !$$Ifa$gd7laaaa !$$IfgdNir$ !$$Ifa$gdNiraaa" !$$Ifgds kd9$$If@4 ֞p ">*`pX t62222244:4apaa;b}W5CJaJh45CJaJh7lh!/CJaJh4CJaJh7lh6CJaJh7lh4CJaJ jh7lh4CJaJ#aaaabbbb'b(b;b=bGbHbUbVbcbdbwbybb$ !$$Ifa$gdNir !$$IfgdNir & F# h!$J$If^`JgdNir$ !$$Ifa$gd4bbbbbb & F# h!$J$If^`JgdNir !$$IfgdNirbb kd;$$If@4֞p ">* `pX`` t644:4apFbbbbbbbbbbbbbb !$$IfgdP & F" h!x$x$If^x`gdP !$$Ifgds bb kd=$$If@4:֞p ">*`` p`X   t644:4apFbbbbbbbb !$$Ifgds bb kd?$$If@4֞p ">*  `p X t644:4apFbbbbbc$ !$$Ifa$gdK !$$Ifgds ccAc/ !$x$If^x`gdPkdA$$If@4rp >*   p XV ` t2644:4ap2AcBcCcDcWcXcgchcicjckclcyczccccccc !$$IfgdK & F$ h!$J$If^`JgdKFfE$ !$$Ifa$gdK !$$Ifgds cccccccc> & F$ h!$J$$d%d&d'dIfNOPQ^`JgdZbV0 !$$$d%d&d'dIfNOPQgdZbVcccccccF88888 !$$Ifgds kdG$$If@4֞p (#>* pX`H` t644:4accccc4d8.  !$gds kdI$$If@4֞p (#>*pX H  t644:4a !$$Ifgds 4d5dd3e~elll & F% h!x$x$If^x`gd=NwkdcJ$$Ifl*+ ` t 0644 lap ~eeeee|,PkdK$$Ifl*+ ` t 644 lap $ !$$Ifa$gdh  !$gds gkdJ$$Ifl*+ t0644 la4deeeeefff#f$f%f*f+f3f4f:fDfEfNfOfXfYfcfmfofffff gii2iNi_iaibiliiijjjjӻӻӻó|uuppp ho>* hohohoho5 ho5hoh nhhh>* hh hhhhh5h1CJaJh6{CJaJhJCJaJh&CJaJhhCJaJhhhh5CJaJhh5CJaJhx)CJaJh=NCJaJ,eeeeffffff$ !$$Ifa$gdh fff&$ !$$Ifa$gdhkdK$$Ifl \$ |D !%* t6$$$$44 laff f f f f fff$ !$$Ifa$gdhfff&$ !$$Ifa$gdhkdL$$Ifl \$ |D !%* t6$$$$44 lafffffffff$ !$$Ifa$gdhfff&$ !$$Ifa$gdhkd_N$$Ifl \$ |D !%* t6$$$$44 lafffff f!f"f#f$ !$$Ifa$gdh#f$f%f&$ !$$Ifa$gdhkdO$$Ifl \$ |D !%* t6$$$$44 la%f+f4f;f@fAfBfCfDf$ !$$Ifa$gdhDfEfFf&$ !$$Ifa$gdhkdOQ$$Ifl \$ |D !%* t6$$$$44 laFfGfHfIfJfKfLfMfNf$ !$$Ifa$gdhNfOfPf&$ !$$Ifa$gdhkdIR$$Ifl \$ |D !%* t6$$$$44 laPfQfRfSfTfUfVfWfXf$ !$$Ifa$gdhXfYfZf&$ !$$Ifa$gdhkdS$$Ifl \$ |D !%* t6$$$$44 laZf[f\f]f^f_f`fafbf$ !$$Ifa$gdhbfcfdf&$ !$$Ifa$gdhkd9U$$Ifl \$ |D !%* t6$$$$44 ladfefffgfhfifjfkflf$ !$$Ifa$gdhlfmfnff&  !$gds kdV$$Ifl \$ |D !%* t6$$$$44 laffiijjllnnrrttvvww z!z}}U)U+U  !$gd(  !0*gdc,  !$gd,  !$gds jjk0l5l9l:llll mnnvo|ooorrrrtttttt uu{uuvvvvvvwwwyyz z!zL{^{||3|M|N|Q|U|x|½½½½¹µ h"E>* h-Ph-Ph-Ph-P>* h-P>*h-P hX>*hX h6'>*h6'h1 h >*h h, h,5 h)Ti>*h)Ti h)Ti5 h'5h'h nhNir h>*h h5ho6x|}}}}~}~~~TTTUUUUU%U&U'U(U)U*U+U,U.U3U4Uʹ{wodS!jh(h'0JCJUaJh(h'CJaJh'CJaJhh_ohCJaJh_oh0JCJaJh0JCJaJh20JCJaJmHnHuh(h0JCJaJ!jh(h0JCJUaJh(hCJaJhCJaJ hJh"E hJ>*UhJ hY>*hYhXh"E conceptual framework presented in this paper have been used to argue that if, in fact, high quality, standards-based teacher professional growth takes place, it will lead to and rigorously support our most important state interesthigh quality, standards-based student success. Page  PAGE 1 Page  PAGE 2 Page  PAGE 5 Page  PAGE 6 Page  PAGE 11 Standards-Based Teacher Dispositions School Improvement Plan Job Responsibilities Standards-Based Teacher Knowledge Standards-Based Student Success The Relationship of Teacher Standards and Job Expectations with Standards-Based Student Success and Teacher Professional Growth Additional Mediating Factors Knowledge of Teacher Job Expectations Standards-Based Teacher Performances Additional Mediating Factors Professional Growth: Improving Standards-Based Teacher Knowledge, Dispositions & Performances Using Essential Characteristics of Professional Development +U,U>U?UQURUSUTUUUgUhUiUjU}U~UUUUUUU & F h^`gdr$a$gd0  !0*P7Bgd[  !P7gdp  !0*7Bgd  !7gd'4U:U;UU?UAUFUGUMUNUOUPUQURUSUTUUUWU\U]UcUdUeUfUgUhUiUjUļӠ~zvrj_TrPrhkh_ohCJaJh(h'CJaJh'CJaJhhphB(h_ohh0h0h05 h05hlhlCJaJhrCJaJhrhrCJaJhhg>h0hAhh_oh[CJaJhA0JCJaJmHnHuh(h[0JCJaJ!jh(h[0JCJUaJh(h[CJaJh[CJaJ&UUUUVVYVVVVVVVWW"W#W$W9W:WWWWWW & F h^`gdlgdlgdg>$a$gdg>$a$gd0WWW hJh"EhB(WW  !$gds *&P1h:p_o/ =!"#$%-&P1h0:pvt= /!"#$%*&P1h:pkd*$$Ifl4 WG$  &$@):  t)6((((44 lapds$$If!v h555555555 5 5 5 5 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v #v #v #v #v :Vl4 t0)6+++, 555555555 5 5 5 5 / / / / / / pւkdg$$Ifl4" WG$   &$@) t)6444444 lapւ)$$If!v h555555555 5 5 5 3 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v #v #v #v 3 :Vl4 t0)6+++, 5555555 5 5 5 3 / / /  / / pxkd $$Ifl4  WG$ ^ @)3  t)6000044 lapx$$If!vh555 55: 553 #v#v#v #v#v: #v#v3 :Vl4 t0)6+,555 55: 553 / / / / / / / / / / / / / 2 6$$If!vh555 55: 553 #v#v#v #v#v: #v#v3 :Vl4 t0)6+,555 55: 553 / / / $$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v#v#v#v#v #v :Vl4 t0)6+, 55555555 5 / / / /  2 R$$If!vh555 55: 553 #v#v#v #v#v: #v#v3 :Vl4 t0)6+,555 55: 553 / / / / / $$If!vh555 55: 553 #v#v#v #v#v: #v#v3 :Vl4 t0)6+,555 55: 553 / / / / / / / / / / / / f$$If!vh58#v8:Vl ` t 658p $$If!vh5555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :Vl t6,5555 5 $$If!vh5555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :Vl t65555 5 $$If!vh5555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :Vl t65555 5 $$If!vh5555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :Vl t65555 5 $$If!vh5555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :Vl t65555 5 $$If!vh5555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :Vl t65555 5 a$$If!vh5+#v+:Vl ` t 65+p B$$If!vh5+#v+:Vl t65+K$$If!vh555p5X555#v#v#vp#vX#v#v#v:V@ ` t 06555p5X555/ / 4:4p $$If!vh555p5X555#v#v#vp#vX#v#v#v:V@4 t06+,555p5X555/ / / / / / 4:4p~$$If!vh555p5X555#v#v#vp#vX#v#v#v:V@4 ``` tF06+,555p5X555/ / / / / / / / / / 222224:4pFBkd4$$If@4֞p ">* pX ``` tF62222244:4apF($$If!vh555p5X555#v#v#vp#vX#v#v#v:V@4  t06+,,,555p5X555/ /  / / / /  / / / /  / / / 222224:4p<$$If!vh555p5X555#v#v#vp#vX#v#v#v:V@4 t06++++,,,555p5X555/ / / / / / / / / / / / / 4:4pF $$If!vh555p5X555#v#v#vp#vX#v#v#v:V@4: t06++++++555p5X555/ / / / / / / / / / 4:4pF$$If!vh555p5X555#v#v#vp#vX#v#v#v:V@4 t06++++555p5X555/ / / / / / / 4:4pF$$If!vh555p5X5V#v#v#vp#vX#vV:V@4 ` t206++++,555p5X5V/ / / / 4:4p2$$If!vh555p5X55H5#v#v#vp#vX#v#vH#v:V@4 `` tF06+,555p5X55H5/ / / / / / 4:4pFkdC$$If@4֞p (#>*`pXH `` tF644:4apFh$$If!vh555p5X55H5#v#v#vp#vX#v#vH#v:V@4 t06+++555p5X55H5/ / /  / / 4:4G$$If!vh555p5X55H5#v#v#vp#vX#v#vH#v:V@4 t06++555p5X55H5/ / /  4:4f$$If!vh5+#v+:Vl ` t 65+p G$$If!vh5+#v+:Vl t65+$$If!vh5+#v+:Vl ` t 06,5+/ p "$$If!v h555555555 #v :Vl t06, 5 / / / /  / / /  v$$If!v h555555555 #v :Vl t06, 5 /  / / / / / /  / / /  / / /  v$$If!v h555555555 #v :Vl t06, 5 /  / / / / / /  / / /  / / /  v$$If!v h555555555 #v :Vl t06, 5 /  / / / / / /  / / /  / / /  $$If!v h555555555 #v :Vl t06, 5 / / / /  v$$If!v h555555555 #v :Vl t06, 5 / / / / / / /  / / / / / /  v$$If!v h555555555 #v :Vl t06, 5 / / / / / / /  / / / / / /  v$$If!v h555555555 #v :Vl t06, 5 / / / / / / /  / / / / / /  0$$If!v h555555555 #v :Vl t06, 5 / / / /  / / /  /  @@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List 4@4 (Header  !4 @4 (Footer  !.)@. ( Page Numberj@#j vt Table Grid7:V0&Tw9`ABww)6"-&,+./78 &Tw9`ABE  x 4p>ww d ,d [d d d:yzZ[UVTU w x m"n"b%c%r%&&&t)u)),,// 0D0E0F0G0H0I0J0K0L0M0N0Z0n0v000000000000000000000000000000000&1'1?1@1A1B1T1U1V1W1X1Y1Z1[1\1^1`1b1c1e1g1i1j1l1n1p1q1r1s1t1u1w1y1{1|1}1~111111111111111111111111111111111112222%2&2'2(2)2*2+2,2-2.20222425262728292:2]2^2|2}22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222333$3%3/3E3G3\3]3^3_3`3b3d3f3g3i3k3m3n3o3p3q3r3s3t3u3w3y3{3|3}3~3333333333333333333333333334444l444444444 5 55565L5`5r5555555526a6667*787L7j7{7777 8&8?8T8a8n8z8888 99C9X9v999999:9:q:::::::-;C;^;;;;;;V<k<<<<<=:=U===n>o>p>>>>??,B-BDDFFbIcI N NOOQQRRSgShSSSVTWTTTTTTTTTTTUUUU*U+U6U7U8U9U:U;UU?UUUVUlUmUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVVVV'V(V;V=VGVHVUVVVcVdVwVyVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVWWAWBWCWDWWWXWgWhWiWjWkWlWyWzWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW4X5XX3Y~YYYYYYYYZZZZZZZZZ Z Z Z Z ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Z!Z"Z#Z$Z%Z+Z4Z;Z@ZAZBZCZDZEZFZGZHZIZJZKZLZMZNZOZPZQZRZSZTZUZVZWZXZYZZZ[Z\Z]Z^Z_Z`ZaZbZcZdZeZfZgZhZiZjZkZlZmZnZZZ]]^^``bbffhhjjkk n!nqqttttttuuuu uuuuu1u2u3uXuYuquuuuuuuu vMvNvkvlvvvvvvvvvv7wswtwuwxw00000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 00000 0000000 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 000 0 000 0 0 00 0 000 0 0 0 00 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0000000 000 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0000 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0  0  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0  0 0  0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0  0 0 0 00080808080808000@0@0@0@00H0H00H0H0P0P00 0 000 0 00P0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00! 00! 00! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # 00# 00# 00# 00# 0 0 # 00# 00# 00# 0 0 # 00# 00# 00 0 00" 00" 00" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00$ 00$ 00$ 0 0 00$ 00$ 00$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 % 0% 0% 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000X0X0X0X0X000`0`0`00`0h00h00h0h0h0h0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00<, 00 0 000000000000000000000 0 000:yzZ[UVTU w x m"n"b%c%r%&&&t)u)),,// 0D0E0F0G0H0I0J0K0L0M0N0Z0n0v000000000000000000000000000000000&1'1?1@1A1B1T1U1V1W1X1Y1Z1[1\1^1`1b1c1e1g1i1j1l1n1p1q1r1s1t1u1w1y1{1|1}1~111111111111111111111111111111111112222%2&2'2(2)2*2+2,2-2.20222425262728292:2]2^2|2}22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222333$3%3/3E3G3\3]3^3_3`3b3d3f3g3i3k3m3n3o3p3q3r3s3t3u3w3y3{3|3}3~3333333333333333333333333334444l444444444 5 55565L5`5r5555555526a6667*787L7j7{7777 8&8?8T8a8n8z8888 99C9X9v999999:9:q:::::::-;C;^;;;;;;V<k<<<<<=:=U===n>o>p>>>>??,B-BDDFFbIcI N NOOQQRRSgShSSSVTWTTTTTTTTTTTUUUU*U+U6U7U8U9U:U;UU?UUUVUlUmUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVVVV'V(V;V=VGVHVUVVVcVdVwVyVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVWWAWBWCWDWWWXWgWhWiWjWkWlWyWzWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW4X5XX3Y~YYYYYYYYZZZZZZZZZ Z Z Z Z ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Z!Z"Z#Z$Z%Z+Z4Z;Z@ZAZBZCZDZEZFZGZHZIZJZKZLZMZNZOZPZQZRZSZTZUZVZWZXZYZZZ[Z\Z]Z^Z_Z`ZaZbZcZdZeZfZgZhZiZjZkZlZmZnZZZ]]^^``bbffhhjjkk n!nqqttttuxw0000000000000000M900000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 000(0(0(0(0(0(00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 000 0 000 0 0 00 0 000 0 0 0 00 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0000000 000 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0My0000 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0  0  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0  0 0  0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0  0 0 0 0008080808080@00@000@0H0H0H000H0P0P0P00 0 000 0 00P0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00! 00! 00! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # 00# 00# 00# 00# 0 0 # 00# 00# 00# 0 0 # 00# 00# 00 0 00" 00" 00" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00$ 00$ 00$ 0 0 00$ 00$ 00$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 % 0% 0% 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00X0X0X0X0X0`00`0`0`00h0h0h0h00h0h0h0p 06@0@0Oy00ж@0 0\{ ((((((<<<<>>QQQQSSgggj&9@CF Ta4djx|4UjUWW@DELjou{.89999~::::: ; ;";;;;<T<V<r<t<6=8===>>>>??0??@@LAA2B DDEEEFCGInJJg_V``a*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonName8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate  111919971999296DayMonthYeart2u3uxwStUtt2u3uxw33yyzz_$`$00?1@1333344?HIH4U5U:V:V;V;VVVWWWWYZZZXZYZ^^__9`:`jjmtttttttttttuuu%u0u2u3uXuYuuwxwt2u3uxwDr. Richard D. Frisbie%N=,w*GRE8/p>h5D`,Ux @|)$(M _Xn6?4* D2Ξ$2Ξ"7#"Xȗ6"~2J3T-`hFI:`hFLj;j/@ -h/A>}KkAkhCPo%C 0 s P0C'[;e}? !c1!ni%'B(x)p#+Og,!/0+0b0?2P4 #4 x47=9(B:I\;M$=g>1 @@7@}T@"E*FFfG-Jv3JN=NrN-PZbVJW>}W9XYwZ;[ew\g]wU`je`{a4Dd)TiLj \j7lo>RgShSVTWTTTTTTTTTT6U7U8U9U:U;UU?UUUVUlUmUUUUUUUUUUUUU;V=VwVyVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVWWAWBWCWDWWWXWgWhWiWjWkWlWWWWWWWWWWWWWW4X5X~YYYYYYYYZZZZZZZZZ Z Z Z Z ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Z!Z"Z#Z$Z%Z+Z4Z;Z@ZAZBZCZDZEZFZGZHZIZJZKZLZMZNZOZPZQZRZSZTZUZVZWZXZYZZZ[Z\Z]Z^Z_Z`ZaZbZcZdZeZfZgZhZiZjZkZlZmZxw@jj2 jjX01234sww@8:<>@@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial;Wingdings?5 z Courier New"1hIyIyjn]c;n]c;qx4dtt2QH ? s9A Model and Conceptual Framework for Designing and MakingDr. Richard D. FrisbieDr. Richard D. Frisbie%                           ! " # $ Oh+'0(< \h    :A Model and Conceptual Framework for Designing and Makingie MoDr. Richard D. FrisbieFr. r.  Normal.dot Dr. Richard D. FrisbieF2. Microsoft Word 10.0@F#@f`|@n@nn]c՜.+,00 hp  Purdue Universityo;t{ :A Model and Conceptual Framework for Designing and Making Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F@YnData W1TableRWordDocumentdSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q