Excelsior
Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 5, Number 1
Fall / Winter 2010
Message from the President by Kate DaBoll-Lavoie
Page VII
Notes from the Editor by Cindy Lassonde
Page VIII
Notes from the Guest Associate Co-editors by Patrice Hallock and Alicja Rieger
Page IX
Update from the New York State Education Department: On the Horizon
Joseph P. Frey
Page 1
Featured Articles on Teacher Preparation for Special Education and Inclusion
You Really Have to Specify What You’re Talking about When You Say “Co-teaching”:
Student Teachers in “Co-taught” Classrooms
Susan Hildenbrand
Page 4
Collaboration for Inclusion: Authentic Experiences in Teacher Preparation
Marie Cianca, Michael Wischnowski, Susan Hildenbrand, and Daniel Kelly
Page19
Featured Articles on Collaboration
Action Research Empowering Teacher Development:
Connecting Teacher Reflection, Teaching Effectiveness, and Program Change
Cynthia J. Benton, Susan K. Stratton, and Karen Stearns
Page 35
A Regional Survey of Teacher Leadership: A Catalyst for Re-examining Leadership
Preparation
Kathleen Dickinson Rockwood, Debra J. Thomas, Ernest J. Piermarini, and Ronald D. Valenti
Page 58
The Impact of Professional Development School Self-Studies
at Two Urban Elementary Partnerships
Alexandria Lawrence Ross, Nancy Dubetz, Cecilia M. Espinosa, Scott Wolfson, Damaris
Ramirez-Bello, and Pashka Vulaj
Page 75
NYACTE
Sharing Perspectives
Numbers Can Be Hazardous to Your Health:
Using Boxplots to Monitor Collaborative Assessment Data
Brian D. Beitzel
Page 90
Public Exhibition of Understanding: A Perspective for Teacher Education
Paul J. Vermette, Karrie A. Jones, Jennifer L. Jones, and Donna Kester-Phillips
Page 99
Nota Bene
NEW YORK ASSOCIATION OF
COLLEGES FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
NYACTE Executive Board 2010
President
Kate DaBoll-Lavoie
Nazareth College
Secretary
Craig Hill
Nazareth College
Past President
Lois Fisch
Utica College
Treasurer
Annjanet Woodburn
Pace University
What Members of the NYACTE Executive Board Are Reading
Craig Hill and Joanne M. Curran
Page 107
Board of Directors
Joanne M. Curran
SUNY College of Oneonta
Nancy Low-Hogan
Christine Givner
SUNY Fredonia
Jerrold Ross
St. John’s University
Book Review of The Edutainer
Reviewed by Penina A. Kamina
Page 114
Mark LaCelle-Peterson
Houghton College
Paul Vermette
Niagara University
Book Review of In the Public Eye
Reviewed by Kjersti VanSlyke-Briggs and Carol Dean
Page 116
Journal Editor
Cynthia A. Lassonde
SUNY College at Oneonta
Webmaster
Ed Teall
Mount Saint Mary College
What Professors at Lehman College, City University of New York, Are Reading
Abigail McNamee, Penny Prince, Andrea Zakin, Cecilia M. Espinosa, Marta A. Ghezzo,
and Ralph William Boone
Page 108
Call for Manuscripts
Page 118
National Editorial Board
Dominic Belmonte
Golden Apple Foundation
Carol Merz-Frankel
University of Puget Sound
Mary E. Diez
Alverno College
Helene Napolitano
Marymount Manhattan College, Emeritus
Laura Dorow
Utica College
Robert J. Nistler
University of St. Thomas
Joanne Kilgour Dowdy
Kent State University
Susan Polirstok
Kean University
Lois Fisch
Utica College
Sandra Stacki
Hofstra University
Althier M. Lazar
St. Joseph’s University
Robert J. Starratt
Boston College
Editorial Review Board
Evelyn Barese, Mount Saint Mary College
Amy E. Barnhill, SUNY College at Brockport
Brian D. Beitzel, SUNY College at Oneonta
Dee Berlinghoff, Mount Saint Mary College
Christine C. Bond, Valdosta State University
Fred J. Brandt, Lesley University
Kathleen M. Brown, Niagara University
Diane Casale-Giannola, Rider University
Melissa Jarvis Cedeno, Brighter Choice
Charter School
Cynthia C. Choi, Le Moyne College
Carolyn F. Chryst, SUNY College at Oneonta
Joanne M. Curran, SUNY College at Oneonta
Margo DelliCarpini, Lehman College, CUNY
Janet R. DeSimone, Lehman College, CUNY
Gina M. Doepker, Valdosta State University
Bernadette Donovan, Molloy College
Patricia A. Dunn, Stony Brook
Brian Evans, Pace University
Joanne M. Falinski, Editorial Consultant
Minaz B. Fazal, New York Institute
of Technology
JoAnne Ferrara, Manhattanville College
Cathy E. Freytag, Houghton College
Barbara Garii, SUNY College at Oswego
Tracy Garrett, Lander University
Vicky Giouroukakis, Molloy College
Linda Schwartz Green, Centenary College
Amy Steffens Griffith, University of
Wisconsin, Whitewater
Wendy Hacke, National Hispanic University
Jean Hallagan, SUNY College at Oswego
Patrice W. Hallock, Utica College
Don Halquist, SUNY College at Brockport
Inez A. Heath, Valdosta State University
Charles F. Howlett, Molloy College
John H. Hummel, Valdosta State University
Barbara Ann Iannarelli, Niagara University
Roberto Joseph, Hofstra University
Laurence Krute, Manhattanville College
Diane E. Lang, Manhattanville College
Jennifer Lauria, Wagner College
Elaine Lawrence, SUNY College at Oneonta
Anita C. Levine, Kent State University, Stark
Kenneth Lindblom, Stony Brook University
Andrew Livanis, Long Island University,
Brooklyn
JoAnn M. Looney, Nyack College
Wen Ma, Le Moyne College
Lawrence J. Maheady, SUNY College
at Fredonia
Jill G. Marshall, SUNY College at Fredonia
Margaret Cain McCarthy, Canisius College
Sonia E. Murrow, Brooklyn College, CUNY
Victoria L. Nackley, Utica College
Deniz Palak
Roy R. Pellicano, St. Joseph’s College,
Suffolk Campus
Davenport “Mike” Plumer, New York Institute
of Technology
Gerald Porter, SUNY College at Cortland
Linda Pratt, Elmira College
Penny Prince, Lehman College, CUNY
Heather Meyer Reynolds, SUNY/
Empire State College
Kathleen Rockwood, Manhattanville College
Anne L. Rothstein, Lehman College, CUNY
Sini Prosper Sanou, SUNY Stony Brook
Ellen Durrigan Santora, University of Rochester
Susan S. Shenker, Long Island University,
C. W. Post Campus
Bruce A. Shields, Daemen College
Raymond Siegrist, SUNY College at Oneonta
Christina Siry, Manhattanville College
Joye Smith, Lehman College, CUNY
Karen Stearns, SUNY College at Cortland
Edward J. Sullivan, SUNY College at New Paltz
Marilyn Tallerico, Binghamton University
Cecelia E. Traugh, Long Island University,
Brooklyn Campus
Steven L. Turner, Kent State University
Jennifer Tuten, Hunter College
Ann Unterreiner, Valdosta State University
Kjersti Van Slyke-Briggs, SUNY College
at Oneonta
Robin Voetterl, Siena College
Julia White, University of Rochester
Roberta Wiener, Pace University
Stacy A. S. Williams, SUNY, University
at Albany
Annjanet Woodburn, Pace University
Rene Wroblewski, St. Bonaventure University
New York State Association of Teacher Education,
New York Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education,
and
New York State Task Force on Quality Inclusive Schooling
invite you to participate in this year’s annual conference.
Please note that this will be the ONE AND ONLY
NYSATE/NYACTE conference for the 2010-2011 academic year.
Our Theme is
An Inclusive Vision for Teacher Education:
Exploring Issues of Engagement
October 21-22, 2010
Preconference Event
October 20, 2010
Gideon Putnam Resort and Spa
Saratoga Springs, NY
(www.gideonputnam.com)
Visit www.NYACTE.org and www.NYS-ATE.org
for more information.
Call for Nominations for NYACTE’s Annual
CHARLES C. MACKEY, JR.
EXCELLENCE IN SERVICE LEADERSHIP AWARD
Complete nominations must be postmarked by July 1, 2011.
The Charles C. Mackey, Jr. Excellence in Service Leadership Award honors an
educator in New York State who has demonstrated personal and professional qualities
that exemplify the highest standards of service leadership in teacher education. An
excellent servant leader is one who through personal knowledge, wisdom, ethical
practice, and courage models effective practice and thus enables others to reach individual, institutional, and communal goals.
The Charles C. Mackey, Jr. Excellence in Service Leadership Award recognizes an
individual who represents Teacher Education in his/her respective institution of higher
education in New York State. The individual exemplifies service leadership within his/
her institutional setting and within the broader New York professional community
through engagement, initiative and personal qualities that reflect relevant High Standards
for Teacher Education Accountability as defined by the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education:
1. Serve first and foremost as an advocate for P-12 students, especially for
promoting the growth and development of all students;
2. Promote diversity in teacher education faculty, preservice teachers, curriculum,
and programs;
3. Be accountable to prospective teachers for their preparation to meet state licensure
expectations (including knowledge of subject matter and of the students to whom
those subjects are taught);
4. Be informed by the best practice and most current research on teaching and
learning theory and practice, including the commitment to active scholarship by
teacher education faculty;
5. Operate in collaboration with professional agencies responsible for quality
assurance in the teaching profession.
Past recipients of the award:
Charles C. Mackey, Jr., Doris T. Garner,
James Shuman, Linda Beimer,
Jan McDonald, Suzanne Miller, Joseph Frye,
and Sister Miriam Honora Corr
For more information on requirements and to access the
nomination form, go to www.NYACTE.org
or contact Joanne Curran at [email protected].
Message from the President
Let me introduce myself. My name is Kate DaBoll-Lavoie, and I am the new
president of the New York State Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
(NYACTE). I have been a member of the NYACTE Executive Board for the past five
years; I am honored to move into the office of the presidency.
These are times of great critique of teacher education and times of great potential
change in teacher education. Some of the change we are generating ourselves as
professionals in the field, and other change is being decreed for us. By the time you are
reading this, we will know if New York was selected for Race to the Top funding, a draft
of the New York State Teaching Standards will have been presented to the Board of
Regents for their review and approval, a pilot will be underway for the new performance
assessments for initial teacher certification, and perhaps a request for proposals will have
been disseminated for institutions of higher education (IHEs) and non-IHEs to develop
“clinically rich” graduate teacher education programs.
The number of initiatives targeting teacher education and the speed at which they are
moving forward are some things of which we all need to be aware and attentive.
Our advocacy role for our profession is imperative. We need to engage in conversations
to not only shape the agenda but also to provide feedback, critique, and guidance.
One venue in which to participate in dialogue is at the annual Fall Conference of
NYSATE/NYACTE. This year we will also be partnering with the New York State Task
Force on Quality Inclusive Schooling for the conference. I look forward to seeing you in
Saratoga Springs in October!
Kate DaBoll-Lavoie
President, NYACTE
Nazareth College
Notes from the Editor
Excelsior always tries to stay on top of the needs and interests of NYACTE’s members and its readers across the nation. Therefore, we offer a special section in this issue—
featured articles on Teacher Preparation for Special Education and Inclusion. This section
is the result of the work of our guest associate co-editors, Patrice Hallock and Alicja
Rieger.
Patrice and Alicja contacted me over a year ago with the idea of doing a themed issue
related to special education. They also offered to help with the issue based on their
expertise and experience in the field. With approval of their application by our National
Editorial Board, they took on the role of guest associate co-editors and helped solicit
manuscripts and reviewers. They did a wonderful job managing the editorial production
of the resultant featured articles in this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with them, and
I am proud of the results of their efforts. Read their Notes on the following pages to hear
about the featured articles.
Otherwise, in this issue readers will want to catch up on what is going on in the State
Education Department by reading Joseph Frey’s informative update. We thank the Deputy
Commissioner of the Office of Higher Education for his continued recognition of the
importance of keeping in touch with our membership through his invited semi-annual articles.
The remainder of the articles in this issue represents a sequel to our collaboration
theme, which began in Volume 4, Issue 2. As you remember—because I know you are all
avid readers of my Notes from the Editor in each issue—there were so many top-quality
submissions and accepted manuscripts on this theme, we decided to run a second issue on
the theme of collaboration. This issue offers more reports of research, self-study, and
perspectives from teacher educators on various aspects of collaboration.
First, Benton, Stratton, and Stearns look at the effects of action research on teachers’
professional development, application to classroom instruction, and collaborative and
reflective practice. Then, Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti share the results of
their exploratory study, which emerged from the work of a regional prekindergarten-18
leadership preparation consortium based in the Lower Hudson Region of New York State.
Next, Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj describe two urban
elementary PDS self-studies utilizing the NCATE PDS self-assessment structure; and
Beitzel shares how to construct and interpret boxplots to aid the collaborative process of
monitoring the outcomes of assessments that are key indicators of program quality.
The last article on collaboration comes from Vermette, Jones, Jones, and Kester-Phillips.
These colleagues tell how Niagara University’s model for public exhibitions of understanding has helped their preservice teachers’ development. Finally, we offer several
what-are-you-reading snapshot reviews from our NYACTE Executive Board and from the
professors at Lehman College, CUNY, followed by book reviews from Kamina,
VanSlyke-Briggs, and Dean.
Don’t miss the Call for Manuscripts at the end of this issue. We’re looking for manuscripts related to instructional technology in teacher education for a themed issue.
Check the deadline dates for submissions.
In closing, as always—but I can never say it enough—thanks to our readers, authors,
reviewers, this issue’s guest associate co-editors, the NYACTE Executive Board, and the
journal’s National Editorial Board for their continued support. Furthermore, I would like
to acknowledge Paul Vermette who initiated the idea of offering a themed issue on
collaboration. This journal is a true example of a collaborative effort.
Cindy Lassonde
Editor
Emphasis on Special Education and Inclusion
within Teacher Preparation for All Students:
Notes from the Guest Associate Co-editors
At the April 2010 Convention and Expo for the Council for Exceptional Children
(CEC), U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan addressed the 6,000+ participants with
a plea that students with disabilities be included in all aspects of their educational
experience. Although it has been 35 years since the 1975 passage of Public Law 94-142
(Education for All Handicapped Children Act), we continue to work at including students
with disabilities in their education at the same rate as their peers without disabilities.
We believe that some of the responsibility for this lies with teacher education programs:
To what extent are teacher education programs preparing our future teachers for all
students? Although students with disabilities may receive special education services,
there is an assumption that students will receive their education in the general education
classroom. Therefore, when it comes to teacher preparation, we have an obligation to
prepare general classroom teachers for special education and inclusion, even as
“individualized instruction” remains the primary domain of special educators. Moreover, with education reform and the expectation that general classroom teachers will hold
a greater diversity of students to a higher educational standard, our teachers today need
more than ever to be prepared for the full range of student ability and experience.
To this end, we approached Editor Cindy Lassonde and the National Editorial Board of
Excelsior about placing a special emphasis on preparing teachers for special education
and inclusion as part of the “forum for research-based discourse to inform the
preparation and professional development of educators.”
We are grateful that this issue of Excelsior brings two articles to that forum that
address our goals. First, Hildenbrand’s “You Really Have to Specify What You’re
Talking about When You Say “Co-teaching” brings to light the continued differences that
teachers and teacher educators may have when referring to co-teaching. Second,
“Collaboration for Inclusion: Authentic Experiences in Teacher Preparation” by Cianca,
Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly describes one college’s attempt to explicitly teach
collaboration skills to preservice teachers and strengthen teacher-family collaboration.
As guest associate co-editors, we would first like to thank Cindy Lassonde for being
open to our idea to put a special emphasis on preparing teachers for special education
and inclusion and to guide us in our other purpose, which was to learn more about the
editing process. She has been the consummate teacher: patient and attentive, while
giving us enough freedom to make mistakes and providing us with enough guidance to
help us learn from them. We thank you, Cindy, for your editorial leadership and kind
support. We are grateful for all we have learned while working with you!
Furthermore, our desire to bring attention to special education and inclusion as part
of teacher preparation discourse would not have been possible without the help and
support of our colleagues across the country in the field of education and related services.
We are grateful to our friends and colleagues who responded so graciously to our call for
manuscripts and for help to review the many that we received. Your insightful comments, commitment to rigor, and shared passion about meeting the needs of all students
helped support our goal. Additionally, you also showed us patience and understanding as
we worked through the editorial process, learning as we went. Thank you for being
wonderful colleagues!
Finally, we would like to thank and acknowledge each other. Working as guest
associate co-editors has truly been a team process. We have been reminded that two
heads are, indeed, better than one, and that collaboration—while a lot of work—
is well worth the effort!
Update From
the New York State Education Department
On the Horizon
Patrice W. Hallock and Alicja Rieger
Guest Associate Co-editors
Biographies of Guest Associate Co-editors
Patrice W. Hallock, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Education at Utica College.
She holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Educational Leadership and Policy
Studies from the University of New Hampshire with a focus on early childhood
special education. She is a qualitative researcher with experience in ethnography
and grounded theory. Her research interests include working with families, child
development in the context of poverty, and teacher dispositions. She teaches
courses in inclusion diversity, special education methods, and early intervention at
Utica College, where she is also a member of the Institutional Review Board.
She is a member of the Division for Early Childhood and the Teacher Education
Division of the Council for Exceptional Children. Email: [email protected]
Alicja Rieger is Associate Professor at the Department of Early Childhood and
Special Education at Valdosta State University. She was graduated from Krakow
Pedagogical University in Poland where she earned an M.A. in Special
Education. She received her Ph.D. in Special Education from Syracuse University.
Both her publications as well as presentations reflect her strong interest in innovative
research in the area of inclusion in disability studies. She is particularly interested
in the presence and function of humor in families that have a member with a
disability. Other areas of her research include second language acquisition and
culturally responsive teaching. As a bilingual teacher education faculty member,
she utilizes her own experiences and knowledge as a second language learner of
English in her methods courses that prepare future teachers.
Email: [email protected]
Joseph P. Frey
Deputy Commissioner
Office of Higher Education
During the summer and into early fall, the New York State Education Department
(NYSED) and the Board of Regents will be engaged in two critical areas relating to
teacher preparation in New York State. The first relates to the development of teaching
standards, which will serve as the foundation for:
• Transforming teacher preparation programs;
• Assessing the performance and preparedness of teacher candidates for certification
at the initial and professional certification levels;
• Guiding the performance evaluation of practicing teachers using their annual
professional performance review;
• Identifying practice-based professional development; and
• Providing the basis for defining the various roles in the teacher career ladder as well
as skills and behaviors needed at each level.
In addition, at its May 2010 meeting, the Regents discussed whether the Department
should continue with the Regents Accreditation of Teacher Education (RATE)
accreditation process. I would like to address both of these issues in my column.
At its April 2010 meeting, the Board of Regents directed the State Education Department (SED) to begin to collaborate with the educational community and all its interested
parties in developing teaching standards that will inform all processes and programs
defined above. We began this work in May and brought together approximately 50
educators representing all sectors of the educational community in New York State. In
addition, as we develop teaching standards, we are collaborating with the initiative by the
New York State United Teachers under a grant from the American Federation of Teachers.
This initiative also includes the development of teaching standards that would inform inservice teacher evaluations and professional development. Our goal is to establish one set
of teaching standards that will inform preservice teacher education, induction,
professional development, and teacher evaluation.
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 5, Number 1
Fall / Winter 2010
1
2
Frey
We are working very hard to provide the Regents in the fall with a draft set of
teaching standards they can endorse. We are on a very tight timeline because the teaching
standards are needed for the development of the new practice-based performance
assessment for initial teacher certification. As we transform the way in which we assess
whether teacher candidates have the necessary knowledge and skills to receive initial
teacher certification, there will be a clear impact on teacher preparation programs
throughout New York State. As we stated in the May 2010 item, the teaching standards
will define the requirements and expectations for our certification of new teachers.
Specifically,
The standards will form the basis for the assessment of the knowledge and skills
required of teachers before they enter a classroom. They will also provide a guide
for candidates seeking certification through a detailed explanation of the behaviors
and skills that are required of a successful teacher.
The observable behavior and skills associated with the standards can be demon
strated in the classroom. A portfolio that contains a record of practice consisting of
artifacts in electronic, digital media (e.g., videos, audio, texts, or graphics) can
capture teacher behavior and provide work products for analysis by the preparation
institution and the State Education Department. Portfolio artifacts may include
videos depicting classroom instruction, lesson plans and assessments, and selfevaluations. (http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2010Meetings/May2010/
0510hed2.doc.)
Our goal here is to create true transparency to ensure that college faculty, teacher
candidates, and the P-12 educators clearly understand the knowledge and skills teachers
will need to possess and how those skills will be assessed for the purposes of initial
certification. At present, we are estimating this performance assessment will be available
and required for initial certification for all students graduating in May 2013 and thereafter.
In addition, we will be using these performance assessments for the pilots of the
clinically based graduate teacher preparation programs. For the candidates in a pilot
program, the performance assessments will be available by May 2012 as a requirement
for initial certification. However, we will wait a full year before we roll out these assessments for all teacher education candidates in New York State.
Starting this summer, Assistant Commissioner Robert Bentley will be forming
workgroups to assist the State Education Department and its testing vendor to develop a
high-quality performance assessment that will reflect the knowledge and skills the new
teaching standards will establish for teacher education candidates in New York State.
We will be asking teacher educators to be full partners in the development of these
performance assessments and we will ensure all teacher educators have the ability to
comment on the key element of any assessments that are established. Along the way, we
will establish checkpoints for receiving feedback from the educational community. In
addition, approved teacher preparation programs throughout the State will be involved
during this process in piloting the new assessments and the electronic management
systems to be used in the implementation of these new assessments.
Secondly, as you know, for the last nine years the SED and the Board of Regents
implemented RATE. At present, 30 campuses have received accreditation of their teacher
education programs through the RATE process. Over the last year, because of budgetary
restrictions and reduction in staffing, we have not been able to maintain the level of
accreditation visits to meet the needs of our 30 institutions. At the May 2010 meeting of
Frey
3
the Board of Regents, we discussed the possibility of phasing out the RATE program and
allowing the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and
Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) to be the accreditors for all teacher
education programs in New York State.
After a very thorough conversation, it was agreed that we need to present the
Regents with a plan to phase out the RATE program in New York State. Acknowledging
that staffing will be very difficult for the State Education Department over the next few
years, we must be fair to all institutions and ensure that they get timely feedback on their
accreditation visits. This fall, we will be establishing a schedule for a phase-out of the
RATE process. We have contacted NCATE and TEAC and they have indicated a willingness to accredit the programs formerly accredited through the RATE process. Shortly,
I will be sending out to the RATE accredited institutions a proposed schedule for the
transfer of accreditation to one of these national organizations. We will clearly work with
all 30 campuses to make sure no institutions are put in jeopardy of their programs having
a break in accreditation.
I truly believe that the RATE process has added value to teacher education in New
York State. Over the nine years that I have been involved with the program, I have seen
all of the peer review reports from the RATE process. I have seen how campuses have
increased their resources for teacher education to meet the State’s standards. The RATE
process, in my opinion, was a developmental approach that worked with institutions to
build up their capacity to offer strong and quality teacher education programs in New
York State. We have completed the first cycle of accreditation visits, and we now turn
towards our colleagues at TEAC and NCATE to assume a larger responsibility for
teacher education accreditation in New York State.
As always, my colleagues in the Office of College and University Evaluation will
continue to work with TEAC and NCATE as we review and accredit teacher education
programs in New York State.
In summary, I want to thank all our teacher educators across New York State for their
full engagement in all statewide activities regarding teaching and teacher education. It is
heartening to see that so many of our professionals are committed to offering the best
possible programs and are willing to volunteer their work and their expertise to assist us
in establishing quality teacher standards, teacher education programs, professional
development, and all components in the teacher education pipeline. Once again, I
appreciate your efforts and I thank you for your support and good work.
Author Biography
Joseph Frey is the Deputy Commissioner, Office of Higher Education for the
New York State Education Department. Mr. Frey has been with the State Education
Department for 30 years serving in various leadership positions and has worked
extensively with the New York State Board of Regents on teacher- and leaderpreparation initiatives.
Hildenbrand
Featured Articles on Teacher Preparation
for Special Education and Inclusion
You Really Have to Specify What You’re
Talking about When You Say “Co-teaching”:
Student Teachers in “Co-taught” Classrooms
Susan Hildenbrand
St. John Fisher College
Abstract
Co-teaching is increasingly common, and research has established that co-teaching
has academic and social benefits for students (Hunt, Hirose-Hatae, Doering, Karasoff, &
Goetz, 2000; Peck, Staub, Gallucci, & Schwartz, 2004). This action research study of
eight student teachers explored how student teachers responded to co-teaching with a
peer. Findings show that although identified as “co-taught,” some teaching practices
were not team-taught. Preservice teachers faced challenges in co-teaching, and a community of practice supported the praxis of preservice teachers. Suggestions for future
research center on studies that inform teacher training.
***
This action research study explores the experiences of four pairs of preservice
teachers as they co-taught for one of two student teaching placements. Co-teaching is
more and more prevalent in elementary classrooms today; the result is a range of
experiences and understandings about what co-teaching means and how it benefits all
students. Exposing preservice teachers to co-teaching during student teaching adds a
level of preparation to their experience base. This study gave them the opportunity to
immerse themselves in co-teaching in a supported community of practice.
Literature Review
In the last several decades, federal legislation and cultural expectations of equality
for all learners in the classroom converged around inclusive practices in today’s
classrooms. The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) emphasizes access to state
assessment, and Boundy and Karger (2008) note that the importance of including
students receiving special education in such assessments “cannot be overstated” (p. 36).
Similarly, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) emphasizes the need for students with
disabilities to have access to high-quality curriculum and be assessed based on state
standards. The result is an emphasis on students with disabilities spending all or part of
their school day in the general education classroom with their nondisabled peers (Kamens,
2007). The positive effects of such inclusive practices are well established in the literature. For
example, Hunt, Hirose-Hatae, Doering, Karasoff, and Goetz (2000) conducted focus groups
with elementary teachers and discovered that students with and without disabilities
4
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 5, Number 1
Fall / Winter 2010
5
in the elementary inclusive classrooms experienced these benefits: feelings of competency and self-esteem, academic and social achievement, mastery of content by teaching
other students, the development of a social conscience, and the ability to work through
differences to complete a task.
Co-teaching represents one delivery model for inclusive practice that places one
general education teacher and one special education teacher in an inclusive classroom for
the purpose of working together to instruct the diverse learners in their classroom (Friend
& Cook, 2003). There are many advantages of co-teaching for students and teachers. In
a three-year qualitative investigation of current school delivery models, Walther-Thomas
(1997) found that benefits to students with disabilities included improved self-confidence
and self-esteem, improved academic performance, increased performance of appropriate
social skills, and the development of more socially acceptable and beneficial peer
relationships. Peck, Staub, Gallucci, and Schwartz (2004) found that students without
disabilities in an inclusive classroom were affected positively “in terms of their perception of themselves, and their awareness of the needs of others” (p. 140). As for the
academic achievement gains for students without disabilities in inclusive classrooms,
Hunt, Hirose-Hatae, Doering, Karasoff, and Goetz (2000) found greater growth on
curriculum-based assessment measures than those in traditional, non-inclusive classes.
Supporters of co-teaching claim it is worthwhile because it allows the special
educator to “be directly involved in the instructional support of the general educator,
planning and teaching lessons together” and can “provide a direct means of a special
education service delivery that is neither stigmatizing or isolating to special education
students” (Weiss, 2004, p. 219). A similarly positive comment is found in Tobin (2005),
who notes that
co-teaching allows teachers to “transcend the sense of isolation that quickly leads to
burnout and departure from the profession” (p. 320).
In spite of the documented benefits of co-teaching for teachers and students, many
teachers are hesitant about co-teaching. Teachers, ranging from preservice teachers to
multi-year veterans, agree that specific training is needed to use co-teaching methods
effectively in the inclusive classroom (Carnell & Tillery, 2005; Kamens, 2007; KohlerEvans, 2006; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007; Stang & Lyons, 2008). In a
meta-synthesis study of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms by Scruggs, Mastropieri,
and McDuffie (2007), a common theme was the need for specific teacher training in
co-teaching.
One solution to this training deficit is to embed opportunities for co-teaching within
teacher preparation programs so that beginning teachers have the tools to respond to the
reality of inclusive and co-taught classrooms. Studying preservice teachers as they
practice co-teaching is a relatively unexamined area. In particular, giving preservice
teachers the opportunity to take part in a co-teaching experience with another student
teacher while student teaching is not prevalent in the current literature field.
Preservice teachers are frequently exposed to courses that are co-taught by faculty
and observe some level of co-teaching in the field, but are rarely allowed the opportunity
to co-teach themselves in the classroom (Carnell & Tillery, 2005; Griffin, Jones, &
Kilgore, 2006; Stoddard, Braun, Hewitt, & Koorland, 2006). For example, although
Kamens and Casale-Giannola (2004) placed five student teachers with two supervising
teachers for one semester, the student teachers mainly saw collaboration between the
supervising teachers taking place as opposed to teaching collaboratively themselves.
6
Hildenbrand
The student teachers felt overwhelmed when collaborating with two mentor teachers at
one time, and they had fewer opportunities to use the co-teaching strategies as equal
partners. Focus group transcripts revealed the “presence of different practicing teachers
with diverse styles and strengths provided opportunities for sharing varied ideas and
resources” (Kamens & Casale-Giannola, 2004, p. 23), but this experience lacked the
equality of co-teaching with another student teacher.
Consequently, the researchers suggest that current preservice courses lack the
development of skills and practices related to co-teaching and collaboration and do not
give these prospective teachers the opportunity to use these skills in fieldwork and
student teaching courses. One study that did design an opportunity for two preservice
teachers to co-teach in the same student teaching placement explored the experiences of
“two pairs of preservice teachers who co-taught as they were placed with teams of
collaborating supervising teachers for a semester-long student teaching experience”
(Kamens, 2007, p. 155). The researcher found this experience was overwhelmingly
positive and beneficial to the participants. As they learned how to plan and implement
instruction with another professional, explore their own teaching style, and examine what
they bring to the co-teaching relationship, they began to believe that co-teaching could
work. In addition, the preservice teachers posited that their “self-esteem was enhanced
as they discovered that they have expertise to share with another teacher” (Kamens,
2007, p. 163).
All of the studies dealing with preservice teachers and the concept of co-teaching in
the inclusion classroom share one powerful conclusion: Teacher preparation should be
modified to expose preservice teachers to the spectrum of co-teaching options and
inclusive strategies. Such exposure should allow preservice teachers to gain confidence
as a collaborative teacher for all learners in the classroom (Carnell & Tillery, 2005;
Garriott, Miller, & Snyder, 2003; Jung, 2007; Kamens & Casale-Giannola, 2004;
Novak, Murray, Scheuermann, & Curran, 2009). Furthermore, Jung (2007) found
student teachers who participated in guided field experiences expressed positive attitudes
that were significantly more positive than student teachers who only completed a course
focused on including students with special needs in inclusive classrooms. Therefore,
preservice teachers who have access to inclusive, co-taught classrooms during their
student teaching are provided the opportunity to gain crucial knowledge and experience.
Such gains prepare teachers for the influx of diverse learners in all classrooms. Therefore, “it is clear that providing realistic, collaborative experiences for preservice teachers
can help to prepare them for the realities of the inclusive classroom”
(Kamens, 2007, p. 165).
The findings in this manuscript are part of a larger action research study undertaken
as doctoral research. The purpose of the research was to explore how to include a
co-teaching student teaching placement experience in an inclusive elementary teacher
preparation program to better prepare student teachers for co-teaching. This study is one
response to the recommendation that teacher education programs “set up co-teaching
exercises and/or internships whereby general education and special education preservice
teachers have the opportunity to co-teach together” (Cramer & Nevin, 2006, p. 271).
Student teachers in this study participated in two seven-week placements. One placement
was a co-taught experience with another student teacher, and that seven-week
experience is the focus of this study.
7
Hildenbrand
Methodology
This study was conducted as action research at a small liberal arts college in western
New York. Action research is a problem-solving process that does not have a true
beginning or ending, but is cyclical in nature. According to Anderson, Herr, and Nihlen
(2007),
Action research is sometimes described as an ongoing series of cycles that involve
moments of planning actions, acting, observing the effects and reflecting on one’s
observations. These cycles form a spiral that result in refinements of research
questions, resolution of problems, and transformations in the perspectives of
researcher and participants. (p. 3)
Using action research as the methodology for this study allowed for flexible responses to
meet the changing needs of the preservice teachers as they began their co-teaching
journey.
This study required a theoretical focus that supports tangible change while addressing collaboration and the phenomenon of shifting attitudes of preservice teachers. Two
theories that support these needs are Situated Learning Theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991)
and Mezirow’s (1994) Transformative Learning Theory. Both theories support the belief
that authentic learning is most likely to take occur in a community of learners in which
reflection and discussion can take place freely.
Situated Learning Theory asserts that learning takes place through experiences and
the social construction of knowledge; one important component when using this theory
is to establish a “community of practice” which is a shared forum for discussion, debate,
and learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Transformative Learning Theory defines learning
as a process of reflection and action; this took place throughout the study using reflective
journals and whole group seminars (Brown, 2005).
Four research questions guided this study: First, what are the needs and concerns of
student teachers as they co-teach in an inclusive placement? Second, what support can
student teaching seminars offer to support student teachers in an inclusive, co-teaching
placement? Third, what strategies help student teachers be more successful and comfortable in an inclusive, co-teaching placement? Fourth, how does the experience of coteaching with another student teacher compare with the experience of student teaching in
a solo placement? The first two questions are the focus of this manuscript.
My Role as a Researcher
I was both instructor and researcher in this study. Using action research allowed me
to capitalize on my dual role as both “outsider in collaboration with insiders” and
“insider” (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 2007). I was an “outsider in collaboration with
insiders” in that I was not student teaching. I was an “insider” in that I examined and
attempted to improve my practice as seminar creator and facilitator. I designed,
implemented, studied, evaluated, and refined the seminar experiences by incorporating
the needs and dilemmas voiced by the student teachers.
Participants
Eight students took part in this study: six Caucasian females and two Caucasian
males. Potential participants were the 37 students eligible for student teaching in the
semester; of this group, 12 were identified through a computer-based, random placement
matching system in place in the Office of Field Experience and Student Teaching. Of the
37 potential subjects, 86% were female and 14% were male; thirty-four were Caucasian;
one was African American; one was Hispanic, and one self-reported as Mixed Race. All
12 potential participants who were contacted agreed to be a part of the study, and the first
eight students who accepted became the participants.
8
Hildenbrand
Hildenbrand
To establish the validity and trustworthiness of the analysis process, I applied several
criteria. These criteria included: triangulation by using six different data sources;
maintaining a researcher’s journal which kept track of the ongoing data collection and
analysis as well as my decision-making processes along the way; discussing with a
critical friend and fellow doctoral student possible codes and themes while appreciating
her viewpoint on the emerging findings; and member checking (Lichtman, 2006) where
I discussed my coding, interpretations, and conclusions with selected participants for
verification and input. Additionally, in each seminar with the student teachers,
I presented my thoughts on the data and asked questions to clarify my interpretations
and hypotheses about the emerging themes.
This approach to the analysis of the data fit well with the action research cycle
because the research continually evolved according to the needs and reactions of the
researcher and the participants.
9
Table 1 Participants
Student teacher
Pseudonyms
Gender
Grade District
Setting
Chris/Christine
Mary/Margaret
Brad/Brianna
Jennifer/Joan
Male/Female
Female/Female
Male/Female
Female/Female
Fourth
Sixth
Second
First
Suburban
Urban
Urban
Rural
Settings
The settings for the study were elementary schools in districts surrounding the
college. Two placements were in urban settings, one in a suburban setting, and one in a
rural setting. Placements self-identified as “co-taught” to the Office of Fieldwork and
Student Teaching according to the teachers in the classroom. Grades taught included
first, second, fourth, and sixth. Two of the co-teaching placements took place in the first
seven-week placement, and two co-teaching placements took place in the second sevenweek placement. Seminar sessions were held throughout the 14-week semester.
Data Collection
Data were collected in six ways. From students, I collected an e-mail reflection
assignment prior to beginning student teaching and seven reflective journals over the
course of the semester. From co-teaching supervisors, I requested an open-ended
questionnaire at the end of the placement. Of the eight supervising teachers, four
completed it. I took extensive notes of classroom observations during all co-teaching
placements, and I audiotaped and transcribed seven seminar sessions. Finally, I kept a
reflective journal. The total data set included more than 300 pages of double-spaced text.
Data Analysis
Analysis of the data sources began with traditional qualitative methods that
employed an inductive and iterative approach (Lichtman, 2006). These methods took
into account my attempt to accomplish something different from the typical qualitative
researcher as stated by Anderson, Herr, and Nihlen (2007): “We fold the results of our
data gathering and analysis back into our sights to move them toward change. At its best,
action research is disturbing research, potentially interrupting day-to-day practices”
(p. 158). Action research allows the researcher to look at his or her own practice within
the research cycle that may result in “refinements of research questions, resolution of
problems, and transformations in the perspectives of researchers and participants”
(Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 2007, p.3). Unlike traditional qualitative research that does
not encourage intervening in the research setting, action research demands some form of
intervention throughout the research process (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 2007). In this
study, the focus of the seminar sessions changed as data were collected and participant
needs emerged.
The coding process included the development of some codes based on the
literature and my research questions. These codes were revised as additional data
were collected. As I collected each data source, I began the coding immediately.
I highlighted initial codes and used a different color highlighter to make note of
unanticipated codes. Then I compiled a t-chart for each research question of initial
codes and emerging codes and where these were found in the data sources.
I derived secondary codes from this t-chart and continued to refine my codes.
Findings
Three findings emerged from this research. First, co-teaching teams did not
consistently use team teaching although self-identified by the teachers as “co-taught.”
Second, some student teachers were skillful at implementing co-taught practice, while
others struggled. Third, developing a community of practice supported the praxis of
student teachers.
“We Co-teach”: The Disconnect Between Ideology and Practice
One of the tenets that guide the dual certification program at the college is one
of collaboration between all educators who work with students. One strategy addressed
in methods courses is co-teaching, which is consistently defined as “two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students in a
single physical space” (Friend & Cook, 2003, p.1). The program’s ideology also includes a move towards team teaching as the most effective co-teaching model to best
include all students in the classroom for the entire school day.
According to Friend and Cook (2003), there are six models of co-teaching: (1) one
teach-one observe, (2) one teach-one assist, (3) alternative teaching, (4) parallel teaching,
(5) station teaching, and (6) team teaching. Of the six models, “team teaching requires
the greatest level of mutual trust and commitment” (Friend & Cook, 2003, p. 184).
I believe that the team-teaching approach to co-teaching is the most beneficial to all
learners in a classroom because it uses the expertise of both teachers and allows all
students to remain in the classroom for all of the instruction and benefit from the
strengths of both teachers.
What I found in the field was that the teams of teachers who had self-identified as
“co-teaching” used a range of models and delivery of instruction, which did not always
include team-teaching. The disconnect between what the preservice teachers are taught
in their methods courses as best practice in co-teaching and what they saw in some coteaching relationships is common with preservice teachers in the field, especially if they
are attempting to use non-traditional teaching methods, like co-teaching, in a traditional
classroom setting (Luehmann, 2007).
Briefly, here is how each of the four teacher teams taught together. In Chris and
Christine’s placement, a fourth grade, the special education teacher came in one period
per day for math. This method was a one teach-one assist (Friend & Cook, 2003).
Christine described this situation during the final seminar session:
10
Hildenbrand
I think it’s shocking how this was considered co-teaching and how it is
definitely not co-teaching, and how our teachers are considered co-teachers and
they are definitely not co-teachers. So it is just the whole aspect of what co-teaching
is at different school districts.
Christine was frustrated by the difference between what she believed co-teaching to be
and what she experienced in the field.
Mary and Margaret’s placement, a sixth grade, was composed of one general
education teacher and one special education teacher together all day. Throughout the
day, the special education teacher pulled aside a small group of students; this group was
always composed of students with disability labels while the general education teacher
taught the remainder of the class. The separation of large and small groups happened for
all content, and the general education teacher never worked with the small group. This
alternative model (Friend & Cook, 2003) was in place for the entire student teaching
placement. One recommendation from the literature concerning the use of the alternative model is to rotate the students who are receiving the alternate instruction so that the
same students are not always removed from the large group. For example, students
could be placed into an alternative group for enrichment or based on learning style of
preference (Conderman, Bresnahan, & Pederson, 2009); this was not modeled in this
classroom.
In Brad and Brianna’s placement, two second grade general education teachers
combined their classes. At the same time, a special education teacher was assigned to
one of the classrooms. Brad was assigned to one of the general education teachers, and
Brianna was assigned to the special education teacher. Although the two general
educators team-taught many subjects, the special educator worked only with the students
who were identified with special needs and never directly presented any content, using
the alternative model of co-teaching (Friend & Cook, 2003). The special education
teacher spent her day with all of the students with disability labels from one classroom.
Students with disability labels from the other class were not included in this small group.
The special education teacher did not work with the second general education teacher.
Brianna observed:
I do understand that this is their first year working together, and it could be difficult
planning and remaining on the same page. However, I feel at times like I am
missing out on learning how to positively work together with a colleague in the
field. Once Brad’s school based educator (SBE) leaves the room, my SBE normally
has something negative to say.
This lack of communication proved difficult for both Brad and Brianna, as they were
unclear of the roles that each educator played in this inclusive classroom.
Finally, Jennifer and Joan’s placement, a first grade, was an integrated classroom
where the general educator and special educator both spent the entire day in the classroom, sharing the delivery of content using either a team teaching or parallel teaching
model (Friend & Cook, 2003). This placement was the closest to the vision of coteaching that I was hoping to find in the field. As Jennifer stated after her first week in
this placement, “We collaborated and they collaborated. It was wonderful. Our teachers
don’t function well without each other.” Jennifer and Joan were able to observe firsthand the power of team teaching and open communication between co-teachers and the
positive impact of such practice on the classroom climate.
The lack of consistency in co-teaching practice is important to note because the
overarching goal of the study was to design effective experiences for student teachers to
Hildenbrand
11
support them in an inclusive, co-teaching placement in an inclusive classroom. However,
what we saw in the field was not optimal in three of the four settings. As McKenzie
(2009) states, “the variability in professional vernacular related to collaboration has led
some professionals to note the absence of a universally consistent definition of ‘coteaching’” (p.380), and this contributes to the confusion about the roles and responsibilities of teachers in a co-taught classroom. Because three classroom settings included
models that were not best practice, it was challenging to support the preservice teachers
in their co-teaching. In the next section, I review the finding related to the confusion
preservice teachers felt about what co-teaching means in practice. Clearly, this second
finding is strongly related to the range of models they experienced in the classroom.
Preservice Teachers’ Practice
Some student teachers were skillful at implementing co-taught practice and were
adept at using co-teaching even when the supervising teachers did not team-teach.
However, some of the student teachers did not go beyond the model the supervising
teachers demonstrated in the classroom, even though they had been given the same
knowledge base in their coursework leading up to student teaching.
In Chris and Christine’ classroom, the supervising teachers only co-taught for math,
and the special education teacher did all of the planning and delivery of instruction.
The only characteristic of co-teaching that they demonstrated was being in the same
classroom at the same time for math instruction. In fact, when setting up observation
times for Chris and Christine, Chris’ supervising special education teacher insisted that
I leave open one of the remaining observations for a solo observation because she said
that is “mostly what I do, mainly what I do” even though this team was chosen as a
“co-teaching” placement. Although Chris and Christine did not get any modeling of the
team teaching model, they chose to implement team teaching within their instruction
during the one period a day they were together. When I observed them team teaching,
they did an excellent job collaborating as equal partners in the planning and the implementation of their lessons. They navigated the disconnect between what they were
seeing from their supervising teachers and what they understood to be best practices in
co-teaching.
It was essential that the student teachers were given the opportunity to work through
the disorienting dilemma (Mezirow, 1994) of a theory/practice disconnect with their
peers and reflect on the experience and the tension and unfamiliarity with the feelings
that came with this experience. If they had not been able to work through this disconnect
during the seminar sessions, this dilemma may have remained unresolved and
uncomfortable (Brown, 2005).
Mary and Margaret student taught in the same room all day, but they never worked
with the whole class together using team teaching. Instead, they relied on the alternative
teaching they saw modeled by their supervisors. Mary worked with the students with
identified special needs, and Margaret worked with the students who were non-identified.
The planning was done separately with Margaret responsible for all of the planning and
Mary taking the completed plans and noting modifications. There was little interaction
between the two groups or the two teachers. This was the co-teaching method modeled
by their supervising teachers, and they never attempted another model of co-teaching.
As Mary stated in her final reflective journal,
The method I feel most comfortable with using was alternative. I felt good about
12
Hildenbrand
using alternative because it was the method we both observed our teachers using.
It wasn’t a drastic change for the students because they are most used to it.
Margaret concurred with this observation: “I felt most comfortable implementing
alternative teaching because this is what the students were most used to. The students in
the classroom did not like a lot of change, and alternative is something that these teachers
used quite frequently.”
Brad and Brianna planned collaboratively and used three different models of
co-teaching as their delivery method: alternative teaching, parallel teaching, and team
teaching. Their supervisors had a three-person co-teaching relationship (two general
educators with one special educator), but only the two general educators team-taught and
planned together. However, Brad and Brianna were very successful implementing
alternative teaching, parallel teaching, and team teaching in spite of the lack of modeling
and mentoring. Brad recognized the benefits to equally utilizing the strengths of both
professionals to benefit all learners in the classroom by reflecting,
We were able to use each other’s strengths and abilities to create fun and enjoyable
lessons and teaching experiences for the kids… it allows the teachers to play off one
another, and overall, I think that it provides insight into what we are teaching.
Like Chris and Christine, this dyad was able to move beyond the basic co-teaching
models being used by their supervising teachers and implement more complex
co-teaching models.
Jennifer and Joan’s placement was the closest to the team teaching placement I had
envisioned. The teachers were in the classroom together for the majority of the day (the
special education teacher pushed into a kindergarten class for 30 minutes each morning).
The pair planned the lessons together and shared in instruction. When I observed the
supervising teachers instructing the students, their lessons flowed easily, and there
appeared to be equality in the instruction. As Jennifer shared, “I felt most comfortable
implementing team teaching because it was the way that both of our personalities
worked out. We got along and loved sharing and playing off each other!”
The lack of consistency in the co-teaching models fostered rich discussion in the
seminar sessions about each placement and how best to collaborate in each one.
Co-teaching means different things to different teachers, and although “co-teaching” is
used in today’s classrooms, “there is a lack consensus on the specific features required,
such as the precise roles and responsibilities of both general and special education
teachers” (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Graetz, Norland, Gardizi, & McDuffie, 2005, p. 261).
This lack of a consistent definition transformed my thinking about co-teaching models.
I shifted my focus from seeking an ideal co-teaching situation to searching for and
identifying the value in the variety of co-teaching models and presentation styles.
Supporting Student Teachers: A Community of Practice
Student teaching seminars are a common part of student teaching. What was unique
about this group was the fact that all student teachers had a placement that was co-taught
with a peer, and both student teachers were in the seminar. In addition, because the
participants were notified of their acceptance into the study four months before the study
began, they had time to think about co-teaching before they began student teaching and
to connect with their co-teaching partners before this experience started.
The third finding is the overwhelming benefits of the group seminar sessions in navigating
the lack of consistent co-teaching models. Communities of practice form over time
Hildenbrand
13
through a collective learning process that allows the members to co-construct knowledge
and negotiate the roles of membership in the community (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Although teacher educators and supervising teachers can present concepts and best
practices to preservice teachers, future educators need the opportunity to practice,
discuss, and modify these concepts in an authentic situation, to achieve overall learning.
This is true for co-teaching as well as other desired practices that we want student
teachers to learn. Moreover, this praxis must occur with others because “learning is an
integral and inseparable aspect of social practice Wenger, 1991, p. 31). Because all
student teachers co-taught one of their placements, they all had a new experience that
they all shared during their student teaching seminars.
I expected to have structured seminar meetings with assigned readings that related to
co-teaching, instructional strategies, and inclusive practice. This structure was quickly
replaced with discussions about relationship and communication issues relative to the
inconsistency of the models of co-teaching the student teachers were experiencing.
However, the reality is that a continuum of co-teaching models and practices exists in the
field. Allowing the student teachers to discuss the value and challenges of each model as
they experienced it provided the support needed to be effective in any co-teaching
situation.
What happened was that the community of practice listened to problems and
concerns, and then we brainstormed possible solutions. This probably sounds familiar to
student teacher supervisors; the student teachers need time to reflect, discuss problems,
and support each other in sharing experiences. What was different about this series of
seminars was the focus on co-teaching, which led to rich discussion about which models
were most effective in each situation, how to communicate with each other and the
mentor teachers, and how to navigate the disconnect between the theory and practice of
co-teaching. Preservice teachers were able to use models other than those in use by their
supervising teachers because of the supportive structure of the seminars.
The communities of practices from Situated Learning Theory allowed us to move
through “disorienting dilemmas” as a community and challenge what we all saw as
problematic and narrow conceptualizations and interpretations of co-teaching.
For example, when Chris was challenged with a mentor teacher who negatively
compared him to Christine, his co-teacher, he brought up the situation to the group for
support and suggestions. He stated, “Thursday and Friday were not good days.
My teacher just says little comments to me, like negative comments, like nothing
supportive. It could be done, said, in better ways. Would you agree with that?”
The group responded with encouraging words of support; Joan commented “For someone to say something like that is really uncalled for.” Being validated and knowing that
he had the support of seven other individuals experiencing co-teaching supported Chris
in managing the situation and being successful in his placement. Chris had revealed all
of these insecurities and difficulties to me prior in his reflective journals, but the power of
hearing the honest viewpoints of his community of learners was significant. Without the
security and openness of a community of practice, the co-teaching placement would not
have been as rich and educational for the participants.
Mary and Margaret also observed the disconnect between theory and practice within
their practice; they saw alternative teaching being modeled by their supervising teachers.
However, unlike the other dyads, they did not go beyond this modeling and only used
alternative teaching in their own practice. Mary and Margaret were also experiencing
Hildenbrand
14
relationship and communication issues between the two of them, which they revealed
through individual reflective journals. Mary and Margaret were close friends prior to this
experience, and they did not appear to want to bring attention to their conflicts. This
unrest proved stressful, especially for Margaret, who took over the majority of the
planning and presentation responsibilities. She was unsure how to navigate this lack of
parity in this placement.
I guess my overall experience is different because I truly thought my co-teaching
placement would be amazing. I thought working with Mary and being able to plan
together would be so fun and exciting. The biggest challenge for me was working
with someone who did not have similar ways of teaching and planning. Co-teaching
is like a marriage, and in order to be completely successful, both sides truly need to
work together and flow within the classroom. I thought this was a struggle for this
to happen.
Margaret shared this tension with me in a reflective journal and voiced her preference to
keep this confidential and not shared in the group seminars.
Although they were participants in the community of practice with their fellow
preservice teachers, neither Mary or Margaret chose to share their own dilemmas and
problems with their partners, which prevented them from benefiting from the group
problem solving that the other participants were able to take advantage of. The level of
participation in a community of practice can be an issue of engagement and participation, and both Mary and Margaret exhibited partial participation in the whole group
seminar sessions (Wenger, 1998). The result was minimal change in their ability to move
beyond the practice they saw modeled.
Discussion
This research addressed two questions: What were the needs and concerns of student
teachers as they co-taught in an inclusive placement, and how do student teaching
seminars support student teachers while they co-teach? Three themes emerged: teaching
practices in the field were not consistently team-taught although self-identified as “cotaught;” some student teachers were skillful at implementing co-taught practice, while
others struggled; and developing a community of practice supported the praxis of student
teachers in the absence of modeling from mentor teachers.
The disconnect between theory and practice is not unexpected. As Luehmann
(2007) states, “challenges greatly increase when the practice teaching experiences occur
in traditional school settings, which may not embody and/or support the reform-based
practices in university classes” (p. 826). The larger context of such a disconnect between
theory and practice is that student teacher praxis needs to be supported and discussed;
student teachers need communities of practice with mentors and peers to develop an
understanding of their role in the schools. In addition, beginning teachers need support
in considering, connecting, and integrating research-based implications with their
practice, and a community of practice during whole group seminar sessions can provide
this support (Luehmann, 2007).
Weiss and Brigham (2000) state that, overall, there are few reports about what
teachers are actually doing in the classroom in regards to co-teaching, and this makes it
difficult to prepare preservice teachers for the co-taught classrooms they will enter into
during student teaching. Teachers identifying themselves as “co-teaching” when using
any form of collaborative arrangement is also not entirely unexpected. The range of
15
Hildenbrand
practices that are included under the umbrella of “co-teaching” is broad, with many
interpretations. However, this reality supports the importance of building a shared
vocabulary of co-teaching nationally. In their study of co-teaching, Scruggs,
Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) conclude that “the practice of co-teaching as
described in these investigations can hardly be said to resemble the truly collaborative
models” as described, for example, by Cook and Friend (1995)” (p. 411).
Having the forum to speak freely about issues surrounding co-teaching was an
integral part of this experience. The community of practice provided the supports
needed by the student teachers. The underlying thread of a common experience made
the seminars unique, and allowed the participants to navigate the novel practice of
co-teaching together as a community of practice. In order for student teachers to make
sense of the discrepancies in the field, it is important that they not only have “opportunities to
participate in relevant experiences and the discourse, but to have one’s participation
interpreted and recognized, as well as valued and accepted, by self and others”
(Luehmann, 2007, p. 833). Establishing communities of practice arranged around
similar classroom placements gave the student teachers the opportunity for ongoing
recognition of their work and the development of their professional identity.
Limitations
There were several limitations to this research. The small number of participants in
the study and the limited geographic area of the placements may limit larger implications
of this study. However, the information that emerged from the study may provide to
other teacher educators in inclusive programs an example of a useful co-teaching
placement and seminar model for further implementation at the preservice level.
A second limitation of the study was in the manner of participant recruitment.
Although the participants were volunteers, they were randomly selected and placed in
pairs, not able to choose their own partner. By not allowing them to choose their partners, a dimension of relationship building was compromised and unexplored. Limiting
personal familiarity within the dyads limited the comparability of the findings with those
of other programs in which choice is allowed.
Adhering to a seminar schedule that was based on the requirements of the institution
was a third limitation. Because the student teachers are required to attend whole group
training sessions for certification purposes, it was difficult to limit the seminar sessions to
seven, purposely-placed small group sessions. This limitation encroached on the more
appropriate, flexible scheduling of seminar sessions to meet the authentic need to gather
as a group when issues arose. Having the ability to call the group together as needed
may have increased the success of the problem solving sessions because conflicts and
challenges did not typically arise according to the required small group seminar schedule.
Implications for Practice
It is essential that preservice inclusive education teachers have the opportunity to
observe a variety of co-taught classrooms that utilize a variety of co-teaching models and
best practices from the beginning of their fieldwork assignments (Stang & Lyons, 2008).
The integration of these experiences throughout their preparation would increase their
familiarity with co-teaching so they can begin co-teaching as they increase their teaching
responsibilities within their fieldwork requirements.
A student teaching model of one experience as a co-teacher and the second as a sole
Hildenbrand
16
teacher is an important consideration. This was successful in that student teachers
navigated the challenge of collaborative planning and instruction, and then had the
experience of working alone. According to Cramer and Nevin (2006), both general
education and special education in-service teachers feel that there is a lack of preparation
with respect to “inclusive education practices, collaboration, and co-teaching” (p. 270).
Allowing preservice teachers the opportunity to co-teach in a structured, supportive
environment addresses this perceived lack of preparation.
It is essential that, coupled with this model of student teaching, group seminar
sessions are provided as a supportive environment for successful co-teaching strategies to
be shared, challenges to be discussed, and possible solutions to be explored by each of
the participants as they all experience this model of student teaching.
Directions for Future Research
Future research endeavors in preservice co-teaching could examine the vocabulary
surrounding co-teaching models and techniques to help create a common vocabulary
among inclusive supervising teachers. This study illustrated the lack of a common
co-teaching vocabulary that contributed to the disconnect between theory and practice
and the infrequent modeling of best practices in the different co-teaching models.
Replicating this co-teaching model of student teaching with the accompanying whole
group seminar sessions would add another layer of understanding to the needs of
preservice teachers as they co-teach.
References
Anderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. S. (2007). Studying your own school:
An educator’s guide to practitioner action research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Boundy, K. R., & Karger, J. (2008). Special issues affecting inclusion of students with
dyslexia in statewide assessment and their implications. Perspectives in Language
and Literacy, 34(4), 36-40.
Brown, K. M. (2005). Transformative adult learning strategies: Assessing the impact
on preservice administrators’ beliefs. Educational Considerations, 32(2), 17-26.
Carnell, L. J., & Tillery, M. W. (2005). Preparing preservice teachers for inclusive
coteaching: A new approach for mathematics methods instruction.
Teaching Children Mathematics, 11(7), 384-389.
Conderman, G., Bresnahan, V., & Pedersen, T. (2009). Purposeful co-teaching:
Real cases and effective strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Cramer, E., & Nevin, A. (2006). A mixed methodology analysis of co-teacher assessments.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(4), 261-274.
Friend, M., and Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school
professionals (4th ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Garriott, P. P., Miller, M., & Snyder, L. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about
inclusive education: What should teacher educators know? Action in Teacher
Education, 25(1), 48-54.
Griffin, C. C., Jones, H. A., & Kilgore, K. L. (2006). A qualitative study of student
teachers’experiences with collaborative problem solving. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 29(1), 44-55.
Hildenbrand
17
Hunt, P., Hirose-Hatae, A., Doering, K., Karasoff, P., and Goetz, L. (2000).
Community is what I think everyone is talking about.
Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 305-317.
Jung, W. S. (2007). Preservice teacher training for successful inclusion.
Education, 128(1), 106-113.
Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative student teaching
experience for preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education,
30(3), 155-165.
Kamens, M. W., & Casale-Giannola, D. (2004). The role of the student teacher in the
co-taught classroom. The Teacher Educator, 40(1), 17-32.
Kohler-Evans, P. A. (2006). Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front of
the kids. Education, 127(2), 260-264.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, Inc.
Luehmannn, A. L. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation.
Science Education, 91(5), 822-839.
Mastripieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K.
(2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and
challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260-270.
McKenzie, R. G. (2009). A national survey of preservice preparation for collaboration.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(4), 379-393.
Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly,
44(4), 222-232.
Novak, J., Murray, M., Scheuermann, A., & Curran, E. (2009). Enhancing
thepreparationof special educators through service learning: Evidence from two
preservice courses.International Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 32-44.
Peck, C. A., Staub, D., Gallucci, C., & Schwartz, B. (2004). Parent perception of the
impacts of inclusion on their nondisabled child. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 29(2), 135-143.
Scruggs, R. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children,
73(4), 392-416.
Stang, K.K., & Lyons, B.M. (2008). Effects of modeling collaborative teaching
for preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31(3), 182-194.
Stoddard, K., Braun, B., Hewitt, M., & Koorland, M. A. (2006).
Teacher for all children: A combined elementary and special education teacher
preparation program and three year evaluation. International Journal of Special
Education, 21(1), 87-97.
Tobin, R. (2005). Co-teaching in language arts: Supporting students with learning
disabilities. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(4), 784-801.
Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that
teachers and principals report over time. J (4),395-407.
Weiss, M. P. (2004). Co-teaching as science in the schoolhouse:
More questions than answers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(3), 218-223.
Hildenbrand
18
Weiss, M. P., & Brigham, F. J. (2000). Co-teaching and the model of shared responsibility:
What does the research support? In T. E. Scruggs and M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.),
Advance in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities (vol. 14, pp. 217-245).
Oxford, UK:Elsevier Science.
Wenger, G. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Collaboration for Inclusion:
Authentic Experiences in Teacher Preparation
Marie Cianca
Michael Wischnowski
Susan Hildenbrand
Daniel Kelly
St. John Fisher College
Author Biography
Abstract
Susan Hildenbrand, Ed.D., is Assistant Professor in the Inclusive Education
Department of the Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. School of Education at St. John Fisher
College in Rochester, New York. Her research interests include co-teaching in the
inclusive classroom. Email: [email protected]
Teacher preparation programs rarely include courses that establish authentic
partnerships between families of children with special needs and teacher candidates.
The purpose of this article is to describe a current undergraduate course at St. John Fisher
College in Rochester, New York, that effectively addresses parent partnerships in
preservice education and provides experiences for teacher candidates in four areas of
identified need: teamwork, co-teaching, family collaboration, and professional
dispositions. The article discusses the four areas within the context of published
literature. The article also describes course development, partnership development with
The Advocacy Center, course evaluation, and recommendations for teacher
preparation programs.
***
The need for effective partnerships between schools and families has been
consistently addressed in the professional literature and policymaking for many
years, but for students with disabilities, the development of these home/school partnerships has been much more challenging (Blue-Banning, Summers, Frankland, Nelson, &
Beegle, 2004; Harry, 2008; Stichter & Caldicott, 1999). Historically, a medical model
was used by educators, which negatively labeled individuals and their problems while
assuming that only a professional could evaluate the problem and administer the solutions (Blasi, 2002). This history is also rife with legal conflict between parents and
schools and “continues to be beset by conflict and litigation, with both sides citing the
mandate of law as the basis for disagreement” (Stichter & Caldicott, 1999, p. 252).
Partnerships in such a climate can be difficult to establish and maintain. Schneider
(2007) noted that teachers have found collaboration difficult among themselves when
they do not have a clear understanding of the definitions, purposes, and methods of
collaboration as well as necessary relationship building skills. She stated: “Even when
professionals embrace the ideal of collaboration, they may not have received adequate
training in the skills of listening and accepting ideas within a group context (p. 9).”
Even though collaborating with families of students with disabilities is challenging, the
mandate for collaboration between families and service providers of students with
disabilities was recognized for its benefits to students and became one of the six central
tenets of the IDEA Improvement Act of 2004 (Harry, 2008).
However, there remains a gap between theory and practice for teachers with working
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 5, Number 1
Fall / Winter 2010
19
20
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
with families of their students. While most schools actively facilitate the home-school
partnership, not all teachers are prepared to be full participants in a collaborative
environment, and the preparation of teachers for this professional responsibility remains
unclear (Smiley, 2009). Welch and Brownell (2002) noted that many teacher preparation
programs are void of a single course related to collaboration with families or other
professionals. Yet, providing authentic opportunities for preservice teachers to
collaborate with families will aid in the understanding of the complexities involved
in a successful, respectful home-school partnership.
Recently, the President of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) said that “new approaches (need) to ensure that teacher education is
relevant to classrooms of the 21st century….The new approach will…encourage institutions to place teacher candidates in more robust clinical experiences, and wrap
coursework around practice” (Cibulka, 2009, p. 45). Similarly, Clift (2009) comments
that while teacher education programs prepare new teachers to be aware of the
differences and richness that comes from working with children across cultures and in
special education, most teacher candidates do not work directly with students and their
parents until teacher candidates are actually employed. This article describes an
undergraduate teacher education course designed specifically to provide authentic
collaboration with parents to teacher candidates in the semester before they student-teach.
Origins of the Course
In 2005, the faculty of the School of Education at St. John Fisher College in
Rochester, NY mapped, rewrote, and reconfigured curriculum to better meet the needs
of the current undergraduate teacher candidates, most of whom wanted dual certifications in
childhood and special education. One result of this reconfiguration was to combine two
special education courses—one devoted to families of students with special needs and
another devoted to collaboration in special education. The new course weaved Council
for Exceptional Children (CEC) content standards and recommended practices (2010)
regarding these two subjects into a semester-long course entitled, Collaboration for
Inclusion, a title reflective of the School’s focus on students with disabilities being served
in the least restrictive environment.
The new course was developed and taught by a professor with a background in early
childhood special education, an area that traditionally emphasizes the importance of
families in their children’s education as well as the collaboration needed among all adults
in a child’s life to provide needed supports (Hemmeter, Joseph, Smith, & Sandall, 2001).
The first two semesters of the course set much of the foundation that remains today: a)
working with an interdisciplinary team (Correa, Jones, Thomas, & Morsink, 2004);
b) family systems theory (Lambie, 2007); c) parent-teacher collaboration (Davis & Yang,
2005); d) co-teaching and collaborative consultation models (Friend, M. & Cook, L.,
2010; Kampwirth, 2005) and e) professional dispositions and reflective practices
(Schon, 1995).
Partnership with The Advocacy Center
In the spring preceding the third semester of the course, The Advocacy Center,
a not-for-profit organization providing an array of advocacy, legal, and independent
living services for people with disabilities in the region, set out to create a speakers’
bureau of parents. The mission was to promote awareness. Parents were to be available
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
21
to professionally and effectively “tell their stories” about issues of parenting, navigating
the medical and educational systems, and finding ways to successfully include their
children and their families into society. The audiences for these speakers were to be
community organizations, health care and school employees, policy makers and other
potential neighbors or citizens. The Advocacy Center held focus groups, consisting of
parents and other invited persons from these stakeholder groups. Results of the focus
groups helped to form the curriculum for the speakers’ bureau preparation program.
One of the invited focus group participants was the Collaboration for Inclusion
professor. He had been using a families textbook (Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, & Soodak,
2006) and case studies to teach aspects of family systems, development, demographics,
and routines. With access to a professionally trained speakers’ bureau, he wondered if he
could supplement or replace “paper parents” in his course with parents whose children
attended the schools where teacher candidates could be placed.
With the cooperation of the public education coordinator for The Advocacy Center,
in the fall semester of 2006, a new iteration of Collaboration for Inclusion began.
A group of twenty teacher candidates were randomly assigned into four teams for the
semester. In the context of special education, they initially learned collaboration skills,
including setting ground rules, defining their charge or mission, facilitating meetings and
writing agendas and minutes and then practiced throughout the semester. Each team
received two major projects: one that would demonstrate a lesson or lessons devoted to a
specific co-teaching model (Friend & Cook, 2010) and a semester-long project that
involved collaborating with a “real” family of a child with special needs, one of the
speakers’ bureau families. The team and family experiences were the subject of
reflective writings that would also assess professional dispositions and written
communication skills (Schon, 1995).
Since that time, four other professors have taught sections of the course. One section
was co-taught by general education and special education faculty members. Although
there has been some variation in course delivery, the objectives, and the professional
standards, upon which the course is based, have remained the same.
Philosophy and Guiding Principles of the Course
The School of Education at St. John Fisher College recognized that, more than ever,
all educators collaborate with other adults to make educational decisions regarding
curriculum, planning, instruction, assessment, and the coordination of services for all
students. However, these decisions were more complex for students with exceptional
learning needs and their families. Teacher candidates, therefore, needed to reflect on,
among other skills, their personal and professional communication and behavior.
Especially as novices in the field, they needed to consider the possible impact of their
words and actions on students, parents, and colleagues. This was best developed through
the experience of working in multidisciplinary teams and developing a partnership
with a family while still at the preservice level. Learning the skills of a self-managed
team charged with improving their own knowledge about an issue faced by a family with
a child with a disability builds empathy as well as collaboration skills (Barry, 1991).
Also, the values of diversity, achievement, compassion, knowledge, and service
were integrated into this course with an eye toward social justice in a sometimes
unjust educational system and society.
22
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
Objectives and Standards of the Course
Table 1 lists the major topics of the course as well as the CEC and Association for
Childhood International (ACEI) standards that informed the course and helped it adhere
to NCATE accreditation guidelines. The table also references the assignments of the
course and the rubrics that were used to assess learner outcomes. Course activities and
assignments contained aspects of several major themes and standards, and were intended
to interact, build upon, and reinforce lessons throughout the semester.
23
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
Activities and Assignments of the Course
Teacher candidates in Collaboration for Inclusion were presented with four key areas
that overlapped and reinforced relevant approaches as defined in the literature. Each of
the areas played an important role in achieving course outcomes and included activities
that brought concepts and skills to life. The key areas were: Teamwork; Co-teaching
approaches; Family Collaboration; and Professional Dispositions. Figure 1 offers a
graphic organizer that depicts the connection and reinforcement of course components in
Collaboration for Inclusion.
Table 1
Standards from National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education ( NCATE),
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), and Association for Childhood International
(ACEI) /Assessments/ Learning Outcomes
Teamwork
Co-Teaching
Collaboration
for Inclusion
Family
Collaboration
Professional
Dispositionsand
Personal Growth
Figure 1. Components of the course. Collaboration for Inclusion
Teamwork. In a recent survey of special educators, McKenzie (2009) pointed out
that effective collaboration between teachers requires skills and experiences that contribute to
team development and reflection. These skills and experiences can begin in preservice
education. So, when teaching the collaboration course, faculty members began by
randomly dividing candidates into small groups for the length of the semester. Teams of
four to six teacher candidates worked together, shared responsibilities and pursued major
assignments collaboratively. This served three purposes. First, each group got to know
each other’s preferences and parameters as they developed mutual language around their
objectives and activities for the course. Second, each group gained experience as a team
member and contributor in preparation for the committees and interdisciplinary teamwork
prevalent in schools. Third, team members were able to practice and apply professional
dispositions that were a part of the course and tied to professional standards.
Because of the need to effectively connect and understand the purpose and focus of
the team’s work, the first assignment was to develop a group mission statement that
reflected the objectives of the course. Groups also discussed and formulated ground
rules. This exercise and numerous course activities provided opportunities for team members to
acknowledge their external audiences and their individual values and talents (Emery, 1996).
24
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
Co-teaching Approaches. Another aspect of collaboration, co-teaching, was part of
the course as a result of changes in the law in the IDEA Improvement Act of 2004. The
origins of co-teaching can be traced to the Progressive Education movement of the 1960s
when it was used to model the social nature of learning and the value of collaboration
between individuals in a classroom (Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2004). In the 1970s,
co-teaching was used minimally to support legislative school reforms that encouraged
teachers to modify instruction for an increasingly diverse student population. At this
point in educational history, research on co-teaching began appearing in the field’s literature.
Students with disabilities enjoyed many educational gains in the 1980s and 1990s.
Improved academic and social skills, improved attitudes and self-concepts, and an
increased likelihood of positive peer relationships are products of the co-teaching
movement. The research conducted around co-teaching at this time focused on existing
co-teaching models and the subsequent benefits and challenges. For example, one study
of 23 schools across eight districts that implemented co-teaching models in their classrooms used teacher interviews and surveys to conclude that these positive changes
resulted from more teacher time and attention and an enhanced sense of community
within the general education classroom (Walther-Thomas, 1997). Having more than one
adult in the classroom enabled the co-teachers to respond more efficiently to the many
individual needs in a typical classroom. This visible benefit of co-teaching urged more
professionals to attempt this type of collaboration (Hunt, Hirose-Hatae, Doering,
Karasoff, and Goetz, 2000; Peck, Staub, Gallucci, and Schwartz, 2004). These reported
successes, in conjunction with the impending Individuals with Disabilities Act (2001)
and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 served as the impetus for the co-teaching
movement to shape the landscape of future educational practices.
Unfortunately, co-teachers in the field reported a lack of training in co-teaching
models and practices and feel unprepared to co-teach (Kamens, 2007; Kohler-Evans,
2006; Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie, 2007; Stang & Lyons, 2008). One solution
to this training deficit was to include different opportunities for co-teaching within
coursework and field experiences to increase familiarity with the different models of
co-teaching as well as establish a collaborative relationship with a colleague in authentic
situations.
In Collaboration for Inclusion, for the first group project, students read a book
detailing strategies for working collaboratively with families: Parents and Teachers
Working Together (Davis & Yang, 2005). Each group taught two chapters from the book
to the rest of the class. This specific group project offered an opportunity to pair up with
a colleague, learn and present content to fellow teacher candidates. Teams learned about
presentation skills, logistics and planning. Teams also used this opportunity to begin
practicing co-teaching approaches: team teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching,
station teaching or combinations of these models. At the same time, teams learned about
parent and family collaboration strategies from content they were reading and preparing
to present. Teacher candidates wrote up their presentations in a lesson plan format,
follow a rubric that described assessment metrics for the presentation and received
feedback from peers and their professor. This co-teaching practice session simultaneously anchored candidates with knowledge about parent strategies and built
confidence for delivering co-taught lesson plans in the field with P-12 students.
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
25
Family Collaboration. The passage of the Education for All Handicapped
Children’s Act in 1975, and subsequent amendments in the 1990s and 2000s, established
a clear role for families in the provision of services for children with disabilities.
However, relationships between teachers and parents were not always easy and often
became uncomfortable or even adversarial (Osher & Osher, 2002). With concerted
efforts to introduce the spirit of collaboration between teachers and families, the
professors who teach Collaboration for Inclusion purposefully included a community
agency as a partner to authentically include parents in teacher preparation. Each
semester, professors called upon their partnership with The Advocacy Center, which has
an established parent training program for parents and individuals with disabilities.
Participants in the training program became part of a speakers’ bureau, learned how to
present and deliver their message to a variety of audiences, received feedback and gained
confidence. Parent participants were then matched to work collaboratively with teacher
candidate teams in the Collaboration course to help build collaborative skills and
experiences.
As The Advocacy Center partnership unfolded, professors made a concerted effort to
break the “provider-driven paradigm” which tries to fix families in favor of a “familydriven paradigm”, where families are respected for their contributions and encouraged to
collaborate (Osher & Osher, 2002). To this end, after candidate teams completed their
mission statement and ground rules, they began a semester-long relationship with one of
the families from The Advocacy Center. Team members signed a confidentiality agreement to receive the IEP (individualized education plan) of the child with a disability in
each family. Similar to teachers in the field, candidates were surprised by the levels of
need included in the IEP and were often intimidated by the deficit-based descriptions for
each child. Some candidates even expressed concerns about how to relate or communicate with the child and his/her family. The course provided an opportunity to intervene
and reflect upon the concerns and preconceived ideas that arise when teachers receive an
IEP before getting to know a student.
Following the IEP review, teams in Collaboration for Inclusion were responsible for
meeting their assigned family and approaching the interaction with an open mind. To do
so, they created and mailed a joint letter to their partner families, describing themselves
and their program. They arranged a mutually convenient time to meet with the family to
get to know the child with special needs and his/her family members. A team liaison
followed through with a telephone call to the partner family to confirm a meeting date.
This face-to-face meeting usually occurred in the parents’ home and provided an
authentic opportunity for each team to move beyond the “paper description” on the IEP.
Teams met their partner families for the first time in an environment comfortable for the
parents. Teacher candidates were often pleasantly surprised during this first face to face
meeting and expressed surprise at how the IEP and its descriptions seem disconnected
from the child or young adult’s actual persona.
Each class section was comprised of four teams paired with four families who
shared their stories about their children and their family’s search for inclusive settings.
After the team/family initial meeting, team members “hosted” an in-class presentation by
the family to the entire class. Candidates benefited in very specific ways from these
presentations. Teacher candidates were awed by the stories, the challenges, the joy and
the effort that families expend trying to gain acceptance for their child from educators
and community members. Teacher candidates also learned details of areas of exceptionality
26
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
27
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
and ongoing dynamics between families, schools and medical providers.
From this point forward, teams proceeded with course readings, activities and
reflections related to co-teaching pedagogy. Teams also began to define and explore a
topic pertinent to their partner family and inclusive settings. Over the course of the
semester, teams communicated with the parent(s) of their matched family. Team members and parents mutually agreed on a beneficial research project to present as the
culminating course activity. These culminating projects covered a wide range of topics
that added to candidate learning and benefited the partner family. Some examples of
family project topics are listed in Table 2.
Table 2
Examples of Family Collaboration Project Topics
1. How to start a support group for children with anxiety and stress issues
2. Building employability skills through interviewing techniques and
computer assisted instruction
3. Transitioning to adulthood: Types of independent living facilities in the community
4. Inclusive community dance classes and recreational opportunities
5. Understanding motivation and motivational strategies for children with
learning differences
6. Searching out high interest – low level reading materials for adolescent boys
7. Developing social stories for children with autism at the intermediate level
8. Coping with divorce in families of children with disabilities
9. Hippotherapy and its use as therapeutic tool for children on the autism spectrum
10. Self –advocacy and introduction techniques for children transitioning to
middle school
11. Understanding the manifestations of bipolar disorder in young children
12. Employability and opportunities for young adults with communication challenges
The topics in Table 2 and other topics over the course of past semesters exposed classes
to areas of information that might not otherwise be explored before student-teaching.
Additionally, groups tailored areas of exploration to their selected family’s child or
young adult. This meant that groups explored topics for children in age ranges other
than the candidates’ specific area of study: childhood majors learned about adolescent
issues and adolescent majors learned about elementary concerns and issues. Culminating activities were designed to benefit the partnering families and specifically benefit the
entire class of candidates at a critical time prior to student-teaching. Figure 2 depicts the
progression of activities related to the family project.
When teams invited each family back to class for the culminating presentation, they
presented each family and the professor with a binder of materials and resources documenting the development and completion of the family project. This served simultaneously as a final assessment and a thoughtfully developed set of resources for the
partner family’s future use and reference.
Dispositions. There is a significant body of research identifying characteristics of
effective teachers and the role professional dispositions play in predicting good teaching
(Whitsett, et al. 2007). Seventeen dispositions became part of course assessment for
teacher candidates in the School of Education at St John Fisher College. The dispositions were comprised of practices and behaviors that connect to ACEI Standards and
CEC standards. In Collaboration for Inclusion, team activities, individual contributions
and presentations were assessed with the dispositions listed in Table 3.
Table 3
School of Education Professional Dispositions
1. Ability to accept constructive
criticism graciously
2. Professional appearance and grooming
3. Persistence
4. Enthusiasm
5. Compassion
6. Organization
7. Open-mindedness
8. Responsibility
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Trustworthiness
Self-reliance and self-efficacy
Respect for others
Self-reflection
Resourcefulness
Punctuality and Attendance
Diversity
Teamwork/collaboration and
interpersonal relations
17. Integrity
28
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
Summary of Activities and Assignments of the Course
In Snow-Gerono’s study of veteran teachers (2009), she found that what veteran
teachers valued most in initial preparation was character, structure and multiple forms of
collaboration. In the School of Education, the strands that guided activities and
assignments for Collaboration for Inclusion were designed to provide such initial
preparation. Teacher candidates practiced multiple forms of collaboration in their teams
and they learned to examine their values and dispositions in a structure that provided
authentic experiences and meaningful work.
Additionally, although Osher and Osher (2002) found that “it is still uncommon for
families to have a voice in actually making decisions about which recommendations to
implement or reject and how system reform should be done”(p. 59), teacher preparation
programs can develop partnerships that include families to help increase their involvement in school-related decisions.
Evaluation of the Course
Informal evaluation of the course existed in previous semesters beginning in 2006.
However, during the 2009-2010 school year, two of the course’s professors sought and
received Institutional Review Board approval from the college to formally evaluate and
publish data about course outcomes.
Several assessments were given to indicate the level of student growth and
performance in Collaboration for Inclusion and the assessments matched the
components of the course. For teamwork, candidates were assessed on projects and
activities based upon a rubric for professional dispositions and demonstration of effectiveness in collaborating with team members. At the end of the course, teams met with
their professor to discuss areas of a team inventory instrument. This was an opportunity
to share their growth and their challenges as team members (Phillips & Elledge, 1989).
There were several co-teaching measures in the course. One of those measures was
the presentation and corresponding lesson plan required when teams presented to their
fellow candidates on parent involvement strategies from Davis and Yang (2005). Teams
also received feedback from their classmates, consulted with their professor to review the
co-teaching presentation rubric and discussed aspects of the assignment. After acquiring
class content on, and demonstrating co-teaching models (Friend & Cook, 2010), team
members paired up with a fellow candidate in the field to deliver a co-taught lesson in an
elementary or secondary class at a professional development site sponsored by the
college. The lesson plan, along with corresponding reflections and samples of student
work, was submitted as another measure for the co-teaching component.
The Family Collaboration Project was assessed throughout the semester. There was a
formal project rubric that was provided to teacher candidates at the beginning of the
course. Parents provided feedback to their matched team as the project developed.
Professors received team meeting agendas and copies of correspondence between team
members and families. For the culmination, teams presented their findings to the class
and to the partner family. Teams provided materials and an evaluation form to the class
and to the family members who attended. Additionally, teams provided their family and
the professor with a family project binder that included: a) cover page; b) team mission
statement and ground rules; c) introductory letter to parents; d) team meeting agendas
and minutes; d) team emails and correspondence to each other and to families; e)
detailed presentation lesson plan following specific guidelines; f) materials, handouts and
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
29
resources provided to parents, fellow candidates; g) bibliography. Parents provided
written feedback to the team and the professor on the project; and the professor met with
each team at the course’s end to debrief, receive candidates’ written reflections and
discuss the application of course content to student teaching and future teaching positions.
Professional dispositions were assessed throughout the course. The Advocacy
Center coordinator conducted focus groups with each team at the end of the semester.
Candidates also completed a pre and post self assessment containing five statements
related to parent/candidate collaboration. For each statement there was a corresponding
response of perceived proficiency. Level 1 indicated proficiency was limited, Level 2
indicated proficiency was adequate, Level 3 indicated proficiency was good and Level 4
indicated proficiency was excellent. Teacher candidate responses from Spring 2010 are
noted in Figure 3. Figure 3 aggregates the results of the two course sections from the
Spring 2010 with 31 teacher candidate respondents. Figure 3 shows that, in all five areas
of teacher/parent collaboration, teacher candidates’ perceptions of their proficiency
increased from the beginning to the end of the course. Candidates’ perceptions increased
by .96 in ability to communicate; .99 in comfort level with parent interactions; and .9 in
appreciation for the parents’ perspective. Teacher candidates’ perceptions of proficiency
increased by 1.14 levels in the area of working with parents as partners and 1.78 levels in
knowing strategies to effectively involved parents.
Candidates’ reflective writings during the semester revealed additional information on
growth in skills and authentic collaborative experiences. On teamwork, one candidate wrote:
My biggest challenge was working with others in a group. I tend to want to do all of
the work myself, and do not realize that dividing the work can be a good contributor
to having good ideas on a certain topic. Collaboration is important and can help to
make sure that there is full participation within the group and that all ideas are able
to be shared. To work through the challenges that I faced, I had to have trust in
my peers and rely on them to complete their parts of the project. It helped me
to realize that we all are working for a common goal, and that we can work
together to create success.
Teamwork was an area of growth for candidates. One of their readings is The 7 Habits of
Highly Effective People (Covey, 2004). Teacher candidates entered the course with
previous practice on individual activities, papers and projects. They left with a much
better understanding of how to work productively in a group, meet specific expectations
and learn to share success and responsibility.
30
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
31
decisions, and as political advocates; therefore it is extremely important to use
the parents and take advantage of any advice they are willing to provide. (Turnbull,
Turnbull, Erwin, & Soodak, 2006)
Finally, teacher candidates became aware that professional dispositions are a part of
teaching. Being a responsive, organized, empathetic educator is as much a part of
success in the classroom as knowing the content and the latest research. Respecting
families, building trust and engaging in positive communication are important aspects of
the teaching profession (Blue-Banning, 2004). After experiencing a course like
Collaboration for Inclusion, teacher candidates explored these areas and practiced their
skills with willing families from the community. A teacher candidate reported in her
final reflection:
All in all, I have experienced many inter-personal and intra-personal challenges this
semester, but I was able to use these challenges as a learning experience and grow
from them. Furthermore, I now feel that I am more prepared to work with both
co-workers and parents in the future.
It is essential to understand the models of co-teaching in an era where more
collaborative models are in place in schools and where education in the least restrictive
environment is part of the federal and state mandate for children with special needs
(Friend & Cook, 2010). Another candidate expressed her understanding in her
final reflective writing:
This semester I learned great new co-teaching strategies form the book, Purposeful
Co-teaching. One method I like is called Team Teaching. It is when “Both teachers
are responsible for planning and they share the instruction of all students. Teachers
may role-play, debate, simulate and model. Team teaching requires that the coteachers are able to mesh their teaching styles. It is an approach that few co-teachers
may ever be able to implement. Yet many experienced co-teachers report that this is
the most rewarding type of co-teaching (Friend & Cook 2010).” I have experi
enced it first hand in my field work and I love it. I hope one day I can have another
teacher in the room with me so we can teach together.
Candidate comments indicated that they learned directly from families in the
Collaboration course. Children and parents from the partner families shared explicitly
how inclusive education has or has not been accessible. They shared what obstacles have
been encountered and what joys have been experienced in school and the community.
A teacher candidate in spring 2010 summed it up:
As a collaborator with parents and families, I believe I have grown and learned the
most this semester. Especially with students with disabilities, no one knows that
child better than the parent; therefore it is important for the teacher to collaborate
with that parent in order to provide the best possible education for that student in the
least restrictive environment. It is also important to understand that parents can be
useful as organization members, service developers, teachers, recipients of professional
Parent Input and Recommendations
In partnership with The Advocacy Center, focus groups were held with eight of the
parents who participated in the two course sections during the Spring 2010 semester.
All of the focus group participants were mothers, even though one father did participate
this semester. Seven were Caucasian and one was African American. The children’s areas
of need varied and ranged from autism to learning disabilities. Children’s ages ranged
from primary age to young adulthood. There was also variation in socioeconomics,
school programs and services provided.
In the focus groups, parents expressed general satisfaction with their contributions
and experiences in the course. “You can share realistic experiences with others and make
them want to talk to parents instead of being afraid,” said one mother. All of the parents
stated that they felt as if they were positively influencing future teachers through sharing
of family experiences and collaborating with candidates on team research projects.
Another mother said, “You get to see how teachers have been educated, that’s really
important to hear their perspective….We’ll talk about the anxiety that parents have
communicating with teachers and vice versa. It kind of reframes thing in my mind.”
Throughout the semesters, it has been very beneficial to listen first hand to an array of
parents and reassess preconceived ideas about parent/teacher collaboration.
Although evaluation was more formal for the Spring 2010 semester, parent
participants provided recommendations for improving course delivery in past
semesters, as well. Parents provided comments on teacher candidate projects and
course activities related to parent partnerships. They also participated in debriefing
sessions with the professors and The Advocacy Center coordinator twice each year.
The comments and debriefings helped to adjust course content and process based on
parent recommendations.
32
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
Summary
Teacher preparation is currently being examined to improve outcomes and develop
experiences for teacher candidates that are effective and authentic in the long term. With
that said, there is still a gap between theory and practice, particularly in the area of
collaboration and inclusive educational setting (Schneider, 2007). Furthermore,
insufficient school resources are devoted to promoting effective collaboration between
general education teachers, special education teachers and parents (Stichter & Caldicott, 1999).
Teacher preparation programs have an opportunity and obligation to initiate
authentic experiences for candidates to better equip them for success in a variety of
school settings. At colleges and universities preparing teachers today, it may be
beneficial to consider partnerships with community organizations and school districts to
include other voices and perspectives in the delivery of curriculum. Teacher candidates,
who are given opportunities to develop relationships with parents of children with
disabilities during preservice, benefit from hearing directly about family experiences in
relation to children’s special needs. Moreover, teacher candidates who develop skills and
practice collaborating with parents and other professionals are more confident and better
prepared for student teaching and future employment.
There are direct and immediate benefits when teacher candidates are offered courses
such as Collaboration for Inclusion. Parents become resources for teacher candidates
and college professors. The opportunities for partnerships are revealed, and mutual
empathy appears to develop and blossom. This type of collaborative curriculum should
be considered as teacher preparation programs are revised and designed with more
authentic and long term outcomes in mind. As the course continues, the authors will add
to existing data on candidate and family perceptions and analyze focus group results.
The authors will also expand the research on parent collaboration to include graduates of
the program who are now in teaching positions
References
Barry, D. (1991). Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributive leadership.
Organizational Dynamics, 20, 31-47.
Blasi M. W. (2002). An asset model: Preparing preservice teachers to work with
children and families of “promise.” Journal of Research in Childhood Education,
17(1),106-121.
Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, H. C., Nelson, L. L., & Beegle, G. (2004).
Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for
collaboration. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 167-184.
Cibulka, J.. (2009, October). Improving Relevance, Evidence, and Performance in
Teacher Preparation. The Education Digest, 75(2), 44-49.
Clift, R. T. (2009). Structures, curriculum, and teacher education.
Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 11(1 & 2), 73-84.
Correa, V., Jones, H., Thomas, C. C., & Morsink, C.V. ( 2004). Interactive teaming:
Enhancing Programs for students with special needs. Upper Saddle River, NY:
Prentice Hall
Covey, S. (2004). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Free Press.
Council for Exceptional Children (2010). Professional standards for highly
qualified teachers. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/
NavigationMenu/Professional Development/ProfessionalStandards/
Initial_Content_Standards.doc
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
33
Davis, C., & Yang, A. (2005). Parents and teachers working together. Turners Falls,
MA: Northeast Foundation for Children.
Emery, M. (1996). Mission control. Training and development, 50(7), 51.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school
professionals. Boston: Pearson.
Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally diverse and linguistically diverse
families: Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 372-388.
Hemmeter, M. L., Joseph, G.E., Smith, B .J., & Sandall, S. (2001). DEC recommended
practices for program assessment: Improving practices for young children with
disabilities and their families. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Hunt, P., Hirose-Hatae, A., Doering, K., Karasoff, P., & Goetz, L. (2000). Community
is what I think everyone is talking about. Remedial and Special Education, 21
(5),305-317.
Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative student teaching
experience for preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education,
30(3), 155-165.
Kampwirth, T. J. (2005). Collaborative consultation in the schools. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kohler-Evans, P. A. (2006). Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front
of the kids. Education, 127(2), 260-264.
Lambie, R. (2007). Family systems within educational and community contexts:
Understanding children who are at risk or have special needs. Denver:
Love Publishing Co.
McKenzie, R.G. (2009). A national survey of preservice preparation for collaboration.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(4), 379-393.
Osher, T. W., & Osher, D.M. (2002). The paradigm shift to true collaboration
with families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1), 47-60.
Peck, C. A., Staub, D., Gallucci, C., & Schwartz, B. (2004). Parent perception of the
impacts of inclusion on their nondisabled child. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 29(2), 135-143.
Phillips, S. L. & Elledge, R .L. (1989). The team-building source book. San Diego, Ca:
University Associates.
Schneider, F. J. (2007). Teaching collaboration to education majors. The Community
College Enterprise, 13(2), 7-25.
Schon, D. A. (1995). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.
Surry, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing.
Scruggs, R. E., Mastropieri, M.A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children,
73(4), 392-416.
Smiley, A. D. (2009). Our experience: The voices of instructors teaching a course on
families. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 22(4), 36-44.
Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2009). Voices less silenced: What do veteran teachers value
in school-university partnerships and initial teacher preparation?
The Teacher Educator, 44(4), 248-267.
Stang, K. K., & Lyons, B. M. ( 2008). Effects of modeling collaborative teaching for
preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31(3), 182-194.
34
Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly
Stichter, J. P., & Caldicott, J. M. (1999). Families, school collaboration, and shared
vision in the context of IDEA. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
1(4), 252-255.
Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Erwin, E., & Soodak, L. (2006). Families, professionals, and
exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Villa, R.A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. (2004). A guide to co-teaching: Practical
tips for facilitating student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems
that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
30(4),395-407.
Welch, M., & Brownell, K. (2002). Are professionals ready for educational
partnerships? The evaluation of a technology-enhanced course to prepare educators
for collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 133-144.
Whitsett, G., Roberson, T., Julian, K., & Betham, L. (2007). First year teachers’ reported
levels of functioning on selected professional dispositions. Education, 128, 95-101.
Author Biographies
Dr. Marie Cianca is Assistant Professor in the Executive Leadership Program of
the Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. School of Education at St. John Fisher College in
Rochester, NY. She has served in several administrative and teaching positions
and also worked as an associate in the New York State Education Department.
Email: [email protected]
Dr. Michael Wischnowski is Associate Professor in the Executive Leadership
Program of the Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. School of Education at St. John Fisher
College in Rochester, NY. He has a Ph.D. in special education from the
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Email: [email protected]
Dr. Susan Hildenbrand is Assistant Professor in the Inclusive Education
Department of the Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. School of Education at St. John Fisher
College in Rochester, NY. Her research interests include co-teaching in the
inclusive classroom. Email: [email protected]
Mr. Daniel Kelly is an instructor in the Inclusive Education Department of the
Ralph C. Wilson Jr. School of Education at St. John Fisher College in Rochester,
NY. He has nine years of public school teaching experience in special education
and inclusive education. Mr. Kelly has worked as an instructor in higher education
for 11 years. Email: [email protected]
Featured Articles on Collaboration
Action Research Empowering Teacher Development:
Connecting Teacher Reflection, Teaching Effectiveness,
and Program Change
Cynthia J. Benton
Susan K. Stratton
Karen Stearns
State University of New York at Cortland
Abstract
A decade of graduate program change was examined using a mixed method
approach, specifically focused on the impact of action research on individual teacherscholars and programmatic development. Teacher graduates and faculty from a comprehensive college responded to surveys, focus groups, and interviews, indicating anticipated and documented effects of action research on teachers’ professional development,
application to classroom instruction, and collaborative and reflective practice. Findings
indicate positive outcomes for engaging in action research, a sense of empowerment
from completing Master’s projects, and increased professionalism as a result of the
research process in collaboration with public school mentors. Implications for teacher
education program development and P-12 classroom instruction are discussed, especially
the need for writing instruction at the graduate level and the impact of teacher
empowerment through professional research.
***
Educational practices provide the data, the subject matter, which forms the problems
of inquiry. It seems to me that the contributions that might come from classroom
teachers are a comparatively neglected field…an almost unworked mine.
(Dewey, 1929, p. 9)
While Dewey pointed to the “unworked mine” of teacher practice as subject for
self-study as early as 1929, it is only since the middle of the last century, and particularly
in the last 15 years, that practitioner research has received growing attention from
stakeholders in the education process. Just over 50 years ago, Corey (1953) defined
action research as a process by which teachers would study their practices to solve
personal practical problems. In the early 1990s, Bogdan and Biklen (2003), in their
definitive textbook on qualitative research, affirmed their support for systematic collection of
information designed to bring about social and educational change. Increased examination of
action research projects in recent years has begun to yield illuminating data regarding
teacher and program development as a result of qualitative research methods.
A survey of American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) members
concluded almost half of the teacher education programs require candidates to participate in
action research (Henderson, Hunt, & Wester, 1999). Action research has been cited
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 5, Number 1
Fall / Winter 2010
35
36
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
as a way of meeting the “investigative needs of the educational community” and
“encourag[ing] teachers to think in more encompassing ways” (Oja & Smulyan,
1989, p. 1). National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
standards for teacher education programs have also signaled a shift from an emphasis on
the processes of teaching to the outcomes of teaching. Teacher education programs are
required to demonstrate a correlation between their candidates’ work in preschool
through 12th grade (P-12) classrooms and children’s achievements. Changes in both
accreditation requirements and graduate programs’ assessments have influenced teacher
preparation programs’ concerns to help teacher candidates learn from the collection and
analysis of data to improve student learning outcomes (Green & Brown, 2006). Such
concerns also point to the need to bring collaborative work into the school and classroom
to ensure educators are concertedly working to improve student outcomes.
Action research provides a systematic and intentional cycle of constructing
knowledge through observing, reflecting, planning, acting, and evaluating changes to
solve problems of practice (Ax, Ponte, & Brouwer, 2008; Glesne, 2006). Specifically,
action research projects assume an inquiry stance, in contrast to what Green and Brown
(2006) describe as a “caring” or “best practice” approach to constructing projects (p. 46).
Additional evidence of the shift to inquiry methods is indicated by increasing calls for
knowledge that is actionable, especially knowledge related to organizational and social
problems (Beers, 2001; Hendricks, 2009). Extending this definition, action research has
been identified as a vehicle to enhance the nature and quality of teacher development,
both in teacher education programs and in classroom practice (Benton & Schillo, 2004;
Green & Brown, 2006; Mills, 2003), which in turn, underscores the critical growth of
reflective practice.
Reflective practice requires a continuous process, emanating from a personal
perspective, to consider and systematically debrief critical incidents within the educator’s
life experience (Brock, 2004; Papastephanou, 2006; Schon, 1983). Such reflective
practice involves teachers thoughtfully considering experiences in applying knowledge
to practice while being coached by professionals in the discipline. Sergiovanni (1991)
expanded on the precepts of reflective practice for inservice and preservice teachers from
an administrator’s perspective to emphasize the potential benefits for faculty
development in empowering individual teachers to seek their own improvement.
Connecting the call for increased teacher empowerment with the design of teacher
education programs that include action research projects fits conveniently in the contemporary model for developing reflective practice.
The development of teacher professional voice is another component of the
transition from preservice to inservice professionals, albeit an elusive component of that
transition. We view the process much the way Elliot, Daily, Fredricks, and Graham
(2008) describe as “…an attempt to shift students’ perspectives from others’ definitions
of education to envisioning themselves as new members of a professional community,
confident in what they know and can do, and capable of adding knowledge to the field”
(p. 57). The complex nature of developing professional voice, as novice teachers step
into their new role with varying degrees of support and preparation, is achievable but
fraught with complications (Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1994). Studies on the use of writing
in general and Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) specifically provide an
opportunity to increase, accelerate, and deepen the development of professional voice
(Darling-Hammond, 2006; Elliot et al., 2008; Segall & Smart, 2005). Thus, writing is
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
37
often used as an effective learning tool for guiding candidates to analyze, synthesize, and
apply course content as an entry point to the professional community of teachers
(Segall & Smart, 2005). This process enables candidates to connect writing and learning
by having candidates use writing to organize their ideas and begin to solve real
world problems.
Theoretical Framework and Purpose
In the late 1990s, to meet external review requirements and changes in program
standards, education faculty at the State University of New York College at Cortland
designed a research project model to replace comprehensive examinations and to
respond to literature on teacher empowerment. Faculty who implemented the action
research requirement examined in this study were interested in developing a model for
the Master’s degree that increased research reading and demonstrated conceptual and
stylistic research sophistication focused on improving classroom teaching.
In the years since its inception, research projects evolved from those with emphases
on simple literature reviews and historical research, to current goals for culminating
program experiences that are field-based, classroom-oriented, action research projects.
As faculty re-examined the intentions for action research embedded in a Master’s
program, we were interested in what ways the implementation of action research in the
graduate program was perceived by faculty and to what degree it affected student
learning. Further, we wondered if candidates’ research activities were viewed as meaningful and contributing to candidates’ development of their teaching abilities. The
importance of collaboratively developing, conducting, and projecting change using
research projects was critical for the candidates who worked with mentor teachers.
Because it is both school-based and community-oriented, action research builds
capacity among all stakeholders in the educational process and is designed, ultimately,
to bring about social change (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Carr & Kemmis, 1986;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Practitioners of action research are actively involved in the
cause for which the research is conducted, making them advocates for children in and
out of school. The aim of monitoring a Master’s program in which action research has
been used was to identify the preservice and inservice teachers’ visions for social change
and advocacy, and to gauge possible application of transformative practice in
collaboration with mentor teachers. In other words, rather than having candidates simply
learning to mimic what was happening in the classrooms where field work took place,
we hoped to develop in the candidates a sense of self-efficacy toward their teaching
practice, and the capacity to critique and examine the practices they saw with an eye to
strengthening and improving those practices through their own ideas and actions.
Action researchers have challenged what some have called elitist assumptions
embedded in traditional, top-down research hierarchies through the implementation of
learner-centered approaches to teaching and learning. For this reason, our program shift
to include action research was directed toward either improving personal effectiveness
and professional confidence (Auger & Wideman, 2000) or the effectiveness of the
teacher’s practice within the setting (Auger & Wideman, 2000; Brown & Macantangay,
2002; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1994). It is possible for action research to challenge these
suppositions that may underlie the dominant narratives, although more likely in the
hands of a skillful and thoughtful teacher than a novice teacher. The novice, however, is
simultaneously learning or being exposed to dominant narratives that have shaped
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
38
current practice, thus making it especially challenging. However, at its most ambitious,
action research has the power to transform, emancipate, and empower teachers who have
been socialized to adapt to existing meaning structures (Mezirow, 2000; Schon, 1983;
Yorks, 2005). It also encourages the practitioner-researcher to dissect the taken-forgranted world of the classroom (Adler, 2003) and to examine and perhaps fundamentally
alter conceptions of knowledge, power, and the relationship of research to teaching
(Adler, 2003; Schon, 1983). Particularly for candidates in this study, working with inservice teachers, the collaboration necessary to complete the projects provided another
avenue toward change for both participants.
The focus on transforming practice to promote social justice (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1993; Noffke & Stevenson, 1995) may be least transparent to preservice teacher
action researchers who conduct their research as a requirement of their Master’s degree
programs. Many novice teachers engaged in completing a required Master’s degree are
challenged to connect social advocacy to the pragmatic acts of completing degree
requirements. Thus, although candidates working with action research may vaguely
understand its potential for application as collaborative and emancipatory, concerns of
personal development are more immediate, and that too is of value (Cain, Holmes,
Larrett, & Mattock, 2007).
This study was informed by a decade of inquiry and observation, including review of
a number of seminal works reflecting the difficulties of both instructing action research
and evaluating its effects on teacher development, and teacher self-reflection and
professional empowerment (Adler, 2003; Green & Brown, 2006; Noftke & Stevenson,
1995). We designed the study to gauge the effects, both individual and programmatic, of
conducting action research as part of a graduate teacher education program. We wanted
to investigate the extent to which Master’s degree candidates exhibited teacher voice in
their writing and research interpretations, the extent to which they apply action research
concepts in their teaching lives, and the program effects as reported by both faculty and
program graduates. We considered the significant changes projected between 1997,
when development of the requirements for action research was initiated, and the current
practice of requiring action research for every Master’s candidate. Our study was aimed
at substantiating the 1997 predictions that such research requirements might transform
practice for teacher graduates trained in action research.
Research Questions
The study investigated four central questions:
• In what ways are Master’s degree candidates empowered as teacher researchers to
perform and apply understandings from action research in the classroom?
• To what degree does the completion of a Master’s Research Project enhance
graduate candidates’ development of professional voice (the ability to situate
oneself in and articulate the relevance of research to one’s own practice)?
• What do faculty members perceive as the value, purpose, and level of effectiveness
of action research projects in the Master’s program?
• To what degree do data support continued programmatic investment in an action
research model for graduate teacher education and for collaboration with
inservice teachers?
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
39
Methodology
The study was conducted at the State University of New York College at Cortland.
The institution has a total undergraduate and graduate enrollment of approximately
7,200 students, with approximately 60% of students enrolled in teacher education
programs. Approximately 300 certified teachers graduate with Master’s degrees collegewide each year, and 30 to 50 students annually complete a Master’s project in childhood
or literacy education. These candidates almost exclusively achieve Master’s degrees in
pursuit of a state-required advanced teaching certificate. The college has a significant
role in providing initial and professional preparation for New York State teaching
certification, and is consistently ranked in the top 10 largest teacher education programs
in the nation.
Participants
The graduates were members of two different sub-populations, the Master’s of
Science in Teaching (MST) and the Master’s of Science in Education (MSEd). The
groups had identical requirements and standards for the project, although the MST
cohorts typically had less time in the program (17 months) and coursework with
continuous emphasis on action research tenets. The MSEd research projects tend to be
relegated to one semester of research methods, followed immediately or as long as
several years later, by a semester-long project course in which action research is
accomplished. The MST cohorts seek initial certification and generally prepare their
projects during practicum and student teaching. The MSEd candidates were generally
employed, with 65% either teaching or substitute teaching. The remainder held various
jobs outside of teaching.
A total of 72 responses (24% of graduates surveyed) were received from the online
survey. Sixteen graduates (five percent) responded to an invitation to provide additional
information, and nine (three percent) participated in a Master’s project focus group.
Twenty faculty members participated in an online survey, and six participated in the
faculty focus group.
Data Sources
Five primary data sources were employed: document analysis of 345 Master’s
candidates’ projects; surveys of 298 alumni graduates from two elementary programs, a
Master’s of Science in Teaching (initial certificate) and a Master’s of Education
(professional certificate) requesting expanded interviews; a survey of all faculty
members teaching in the graduate programs; focus groups and expanded interviews of
graduate volunteers (from survey returns); and individual faculty interviews with those
who have instructed the Master’s project.
Procedure
A mixed method research approach was used (Mills, 2003; Strauss & Corbin, 1998),
including document analysis and qualitative and thematic analyses of focus group data
and survey responses. A Master’s Project Quality Rubric (Appendix A) was developed
and used to evaluate and classify 345 projects for quality in three categories (target,
acceptable, unacceptable): for expression of voice (personal interpretation of the study’s
findings, relevance to their classroom, and growth as a teacher); for significance of
findings; and for contribution to the field. Although portions of the rubric are part of the
40
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
assignment expectations for project coursework such as American Psychological
Association (APA) style, literature review, and methodology components, this rubric was
specifically developed by the researchers to provide an analysis of the elements in the
rubric as they changed over time. Candidates did not see the rubric as a format for the
project; it was not used as a guide because it was developed after most of the projects had
been completed.
A seven-item, electronic Program Graduate Survey (Appendix B) was distributed to
graduates of the programs since 1998 for whom Master’s projects and current contact
information were on file (n = 345). The survey specifically focused on two critical
questions: What difference has being a teacher-researcher made in your teaching?
What effect, if any, did doing an action research project on a problem of practice have on
your teaching? The survey was distributed via email addresses, and return was requested
within one week. Volunteers from respondents to the electronic survey were invited to
participate in a focus group to discuss questions in more depth. Sixteen graduates
volunteered to participate in additional interviews.
Twenty faculty members were surveyed, and the six who served as instructors for
Master’s projects participated in interviews to discuss questions related to the purpose,
delivery, and effectiveness of action research in the graduate program and in their
teaching lives. The Faculty Writing Survey (Appendix C) was distributed electronically
and consisted of eight questions regarding the importance of writing and research in their
own and program graduate coursework. The six faculty members responsible for direct
instruction of the Master’s projects were interviewed informally and asked questions for
in-depth analysis and reflection on their individual survey responses. Following
interviews and analysis of the responses, faculty participated in a member-checking
procedure to underscore and clarify the preliminary outcomes. For example, if comments
were ambiguous, we checked with the faculty member for clarification. We shared
passages summarizing their comments so as not to misconstrue ideas.
Analysis of Data
Each author participated in the analysis of all data, reaching consensus on
interpretation of outcomes, summaries, and conclusions. All completed Master’s
projects were analyzed using the rubric; comparisons of quality were made based on
each category score. Because of the similarity of APA style and the quality of writing for
the literature review and the methodology sections, those categories were collapsed into
a single category called writing style. Projects were grouped by year completed
(calendar year, including summer sessions). Candidate and faculty surveys and focus
group discussions were transcribed and analyzed to identify themes. In addition,
program cohorts were identified to allow for comparative analyses of different program
and teacher graduate characteristics (e.g., Master’s of Education cohorts and Master’s of
Science in Teaching cohorts). Constant comparative methods were applied, and results
from each of the data sources were compared and included in the results and conclusions
(Bogden & Biklen, 2003).
Findings and Discussion
Findings from the various data sources indicate several themes and implications regarding
teachers as researchers (project quality, critical thinking, professional writing, teacher voice,
and reflective practice), and the efficacy of the graduate program in providing an experience
that prepares teachers to apply inquiry methods and research in the classroom.
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
41
Overview and Discussion of Quantitative Data
Data described in Figure 1 were taken from the seven item responses to all 72
surveys returned. The left side of this table indicates the total number of 72 responses as
they were broken down into affirmative or negative responses on either end of the Likert
scale. Data were collapsed in this way because of the strong tendency to be positive or
negative to most questions with relatively few (eight total) midrange responses. The
decision to display data in this way was made since it was impossible to assess the
reasons for the difference between strongly agree and disagree and simply agree and
disagree. Therefore, the four outside categories were combined into two: disagreement
(complete disagreement and some disagreement) and agreement (some agreement and
full agreement).
Figure 1. Responses from Program Graduate Survey
Data from the Program Graduate Survey (Appendix B; n = 72) was a mixture of
anticipated and unanticipated information. Predictably, candidates reported the project to
be useful in understanding a wide variety of research (high scores on Figure 1, Question
1). Likewise, although responses were more positive than negative about understanding
how teachers solve problems in the classroom, they were only moderately different from
each other (see Figure 1, Question 2).
Comparing the process of problem solving in the research project to candidates’
observation of classroom teachers’ behaviors yielded markedly more negative than
positive responses (see Figure 1, Question 3). Practicing teachers’ problem solving was
not seen as equivalent to the action research process. This information was significant to
us for two reasons. First, it attuned us to the sorts of practices encountered by our
candidates in the classrooms they observed. That insight caused us to rethink placements
and the criteria by which we selected teachers. Selecting teachers with some
understanding of action research and how to conduct it increased support for our
candidates. Second, it caused us to understand more clearly the importance of the time
constraints for both practicing teachers and preservice teachers in implementing systematic,
realistic research in classroom settings. The barriers to collaboration toward research
42
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
are significant, and thus helping candidates early to modify the scope and applicability of
their projects is needed. When candidates consider the scope of projects and their
application as a tool for inquiry into classroom pedagogy and instructional problemsolving, their expectations are uniformly higher than is realistic. Collaboration with the
mentor teacher facilitates realistic design.
Projecting the use of techniques and ideas from the Master’s project in current
teaching practices (Figure 1, Question 4) is positively skewed, in that many program
graduates are not currently teaching (approximate 65% are currently employed as
teachers or substitute teachers). Because of the electronic format of the survey, we were
unable to separate out individual responses as employed or unemployed in a teaching
position. However, responses are still more positive (36) than negative (17) indicating
some graduates who are applying the findings from their projects or are in a supportive
environment where they can systematically examine classroom problems.
Questions 5, 6 and 7 affirm the value of the program’s project requirement. Question
5 states: “I believe that completing the Master’s project has provided me with a valuable
learning experience that helped me develop as a professional teacher.” Responses were
very positive, (50 affirmative) second only to question 1 (51 affirmative). From comments and follow up interviews, graduates expressed that conducting action research
professionalized their experience and helped them to become better prepared teachers.
Candidates generally agreed (45 affirmative) that doing the Master’s project
influenced the ways they prepared to teach (see Figure 1, Question 6). However, the final
question showed a dramatic leveling of responses (31 affirmative and 28 negative) to the
statement, “I would be interested in trying another research project in the future.” There
are several possible reasons for this change of direction. Graduate candidates are generally working either as teachers or other jobs, and few of the candidates are able to pursue
graduate work full-time. They may perceive action research as onerous, and do not desire
to add reading and writing tasks to their professional life demands. Additionally, an
unsupportive school climate may influence their decision not to participate, or adjusting
to new professional responsibilities may deter teacher enthusiasm about continued
research activity.
Qualitative Themes
Analyzing the open-ended candidate responses from survey responses, interviews,
and focus groups yielded qualitative data that was relatively congruent but somewhat
different from the quantitative responses. Sixteen graduates (five percent) responded to
an invitation to provide additional information, and nine (three percent) participated in a
Master’s project focus group. In addition, comments were written on about 20% (n = 14)
of the Likert scale survey. Those comments were considered in developing these themes.
Further individuals who identified themselves from a mailing sent out to all recent
graduates were either interviewed by e-mail or by telephone, whichever method they
preferred. From tape recorded and transcribed interviews or written e-mail responses
from these sources, four general themes emerged. The themes were identified as project
quality; critical thinking, reading, and professional writing; teacher voice; and reflective
practice.
Quality: Value of Doing the Master’s Project. The majority of the respondents
indicated the Master’s project was a valuable marker in their professional development.
A few did not, identifying it as, “just busy work.” For those who responded with written
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
43
comments, the rigor and process of defining a focus, investigating a classroom problem,
and producing the final report, led to an increased level of confidence and perceived
relevance of research in their professional lives. The act of producing research
empowered them to read, understand and appreciate the research process and product in
the educational setting. Respondents indicated several ways they valued the experience.
(All names used are pseudonyms). This response characterizes the idea of several that
were similar: “completing my Master’s project was very beneficial in many ways—
academically, professionally, and personally…[the project] helped to boost my
confidence level in tackling and completing rigorous academic projects” (Rhonda, thirdgrade teacher, interview, 6/24/08).
When asked in what ways the research project affected the teachers’ professional
development, a variety of responses indicated broader benefits than just the
implementation of research. As emerged from five e-mail interviews and focus group
discussions, graduates indicated increases in life skills, critical thinking, and personal
development, in addition to research-based knowledge. Andrea (first-grade teacher,
interview, 6/22/08) stated, “[The research project] provided insight…it reinforced the
need to stay organized, work, hard, and stay determined…I also learned that for
whatever topic/subject I wanted to teach there are resources and people to assist me.”
One of the critical resources identified by our analyses is the classroom teacher, whose
collaboration may increase the perceived benefits and possibilities for application of the
action research outcomes.
Quality: Improvement of projects. Generally, the quality of projects and the
development of voice in candidate writing improved over time. Figure 2 reflects overall
scores on the rubric indicating improvement in the quality of projects over time. As used
in the rubric in Appendix A and figures reflecting data from the rubric, the designations
of target for projects fully meeting all desired criteria, acceptable for projects minimally
meeting all desired criteria and unacceptable for projects not meeting criteria were used.
These designations are typically used by accreditation organizations, and we have found
them useful for analyzing candidate work.
In Figure 2, vertical bars represent the percent of candidates at target, acceptable, or
not acceptable levels, and the horizontal axis is the number of projects analyzed in that
year. Critical problems identified by faculty member surveys and in the project analyses
were preservice teachers’ general lack of professional writing experience, lack of ability
to conceptualize the role of research in teaching and learning, insecurity about access to
sources of knowledge and skepticism about participating in creating knowledge for the
profession. Project analyses indicate a gradual improvement in candidate ability to read
and conduct research, and general improvement in professional style.
44
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
45
Figure 2. Longitudinal Comparison, Overall Quality of Projects—Line Graph Indicates
Total Number of Projects Per Year
Figure 3. Longitudinal Comparison, Writing Quality - Line Graph Indicates
Total Number of Projects Per Year
As project quality improved, so did attitudes about the relevance of research. The
dramatic shift from predominantly unacceptable to predominantly acceptable and target
projects after 2003 reflects several institutional and instructional events. A School of
Education was created, giving greater autonomy and responsibility to departments for
regulation of the research requirement. The reassignment of faculty members’ load
facilitated specialization and regularization of the process and requirements for the
research courses. There was a relatively small sample of projects before 2003, which
may have skewed the data, but there was also a lack of common requirements and
well-monitored outcomes. The criteria for completion of the project were re-focused
from a thesis-like document to a more hands-on action research focus, with the
collaboration of cooperating teachers a feature of the new program requirement. Finally,
candidates began to anticipate the research project as part of their professional program,
specialized in concentration strands with the support of faculty, and then worked in
tandem with cooperating teachers to begin their research design.
Critical Thinking, Reading, and Professional Writing. The Original Proposal To
Require A Master’s project did not include the intention to provide direct instruction in
the writing process beyond stylistic requirements, despite general faculty agreement that
graduate candidates lacked adequate professional writing abilities. Results from both
candidate surveys and faculty focus group data indicate a need for greater emphasis on
developing professional writing skills and establishing program goals specifically
focused on writing. As researchers, we feel that writing skills are closely tied to the
ability to read and critically interpret current literature. Both areas were indicated as a
necessary goal to improve the program; greater gains in reading research than in
professional writing were recorded during the 10-year period (Figure 3).
One notable finding from graduate teachers’ data was a reported better understanding of knowledge sources for the profession, and an increased ability to read and
interpret research findings. Graduates generally expressed a better facility with reading
journals and other professional writing, and an increase in their desire to do so. Several
responses reflect a new, critical perspective on action research: “…I did learn better
professional writing, and I think I am a lot better at understanding how to get the gist of
reading articles and journals for what they have to say about my job” (Tammy, substitute
teacher, interview, 6/18/08). The following was added by Jamie, a reflection of the
empowering effect of reading and interpreting research, “What I like about [doing action
research] was feeling like you could affect something—that you could get at a problem.
It was actually fun to think about solving a problem in the classroom systematically and
showing other teachers how it’s done” (Jamie, fourth-grade teacher, interview, 6/22/08).
Teacher Voice. Evidence of teacher voice—those projects that culminated in a
definite aha! moment, in which the graduate candidate grasps and interprets well the
outcomes of research—were infrequent, perhaps only 10 to 15% of individual cases.
Candidates in these cases appeared to take ownership of their work in a serious way.
They communicated their insights with confidence and supporting evidence, and
acquired a markedly more professional writing tone. While there was an increase in this
project characteristic over time, noticeably in the last three academic years, the responses
of teachers in focus groups indicate the applications they find for the classroom are
limited (Figure 4). Nonetheless, teachers increasingly reported personal and professional
relevance for action research: “I started out thinking it would never amount to anything;
at first I couldn’t believe studying my own students would be something that could make
a study. But finding out what I did make sense…I am definitely a teacher- researcher”
(Melissa, first-grade teacher, interview, 6/22/08).
46
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
Figure 4. Longitudinal Comparison, Teacher Voice - Line Graph Indicated
Total Number of Projects Per Year
Another important consideration of the emphasis on action research is the
applicability or potential for changing the community or affecting the school setting—
not just the individual classroom. This consideration is critically dependent on the ability
to collaborate and share in the purpose, design and outcomes with colleagues, in this
case, a mentor teacher. Interviews and focus group comments about what teachers see
throughout the school and its relevance to applied action research are revealing.
Most just don’t envision research happening. One focus group member’s comment
captures it well: “I wish I had figured out how to publish this…I just don’t have a clue
what the next step is…at first it made me think a lot. But of course, when they’re
breathing down your neck you tend to not think too creatively” (Maria, fourth-grade
teacher, interview, 6/26/08). Whether research is published formally, or in the liberal
sense of circulating information to inform teacher practices, may depend largely on the
ability to collaborate with colleagues and administrators in the use of research outcomes.
Purpose of Action Research: Toward Reflective Practice. One of the goals of
learning the research process and producing independent action research projects is to
encourage and expand the possibilities for reflective practice. When asked if the research
process affected the way teachers work or the expectations they have of other’s teaching,
respondents were able to provide examples that indicate some development of reflective
thinking in the classroom and about education in general (Figure 5).
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
47
Figure 5. Longitudinal Comparison, Relevance of Findings -Line Graph indicates
Total Number of Projects Per Year
Those who responded positively expressed the following: “I understand what’s
wrong with the educational system much better. We just aren’t prepared to think about
what we’re doing with students; we are just supposed to teach to improve scores. What
research does is make you step back and understand both the “bigger picture” and the
“micro-picture”—how schools work and how kids work” (Paul, fifth-grade teacher,
interview, 6/16/08).
The following response indicates a maturing perspective on the impact of studying
and understanding research and its application to the classroom: “It was about my
thinking through and finding the information…it was about being systematic…it was
about eliminating all the extraneous stuff and concentrating on where the problem came
from and how you can monitor and make it better” (Erin, substitute teacher, interview,
6/16/08).
Some participants responded negatively, that the research project probably had not
affected their teaching or perspective on teaching. Martina represented their comments
when she said, “It has had no effect on the way I teach. There is limited time as a
classroom teacher to complete ‘required tasks’ of the school. There is no time allotted to
conduct a research study” (Martina, third-grade teacher, interview, 6/12/08).
While a number of projects were identified as publishable by faculty, very few
graduates followed through to publish their work. Some respondents clearly described
generating information in their projects that was applicable to their teaching, but few
were able or willing to extrapolate the value of that research to other teaching situations.
The heart of action research and its purpose and applicability were summarized by a
number of participants, most notably this response: “…when I read something, or I hear
someone quoting something, my first reaction is to figure out just what, if anything,
they’re basing their ideas on” (Allison, kindergarten teacher, interview, 6/12/08).
48
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
Another aspect revealed in the candidates’ responses was the relative developmental
process of teachers’ expertise and perspective on problem-solving in the classroom.
As candidates developed a self-to-other focus, they moved from viewing the projects as
an exercise to be completed to seeing it as a means to better teaching. The shift in
maturity of experienced teachers was evident in the response dichotomy concerning
action research and its importance to teacher development.
One unemployed teacher commented: “…The study I did was one that truly
interested me, and that made it really important that I get it right. It was exciting to see
the results…interpreting this study was clearly something that went beyond mere writing
and making an argument. But I’m not sure where it goes from here” (Tina, interview, 6/22/08).
A more experienced teacher reflects:”…the concept of a research project is to enhance
the curiosity of the teacher and invigorate his or her love of learning…future teachers
should be able to research something of interest to them. Many have reached the
graduate level without ever looking into a topic that they themselves are interested in and
most have certainly never written extensively on anything…they should want to continue
with the research on their own” (Georgia, third-grade teacher, interview, 6/14/08). Such
contrasting views illustrate the wide range of outcomes evidenced in our study, and in the
graduate candidate/teachers’ development and attitudes.
Faculty Perspectives of Action Research: Program Improvement
Interviews and focus group results provided a faculty perspective on graduate
program and individual teacher development. Project mentor faculty specified benefits of
the research project and the accompanying increased attention to the use of research as a
source of assistance for teacher development. The benefits they identified emanating
from their graduate candidates conducting action research included the opportunity the
project gives candidates to try out strategies for improving teaching and maximizing
learning outcomes. The areas that emerged from the survey and interviews indicated
faculty members value the project and understand its relation to program analysis and
success of instruction.
Several instructors cite the emphasis on the research process as critical to candidates’
understanding that there is “no quick fix,” in teaching, only a “working towards
improvement.” Informants agreed that the action research process with its focus on
cycles of data collection, analysis, and reflection helps candidates resist a tendency to
“want it [the lesson] to be right” rather than to want to consider how it might be improved. Similarly concerned about how candidates’ construct the act of teaching and
understand classrooms, another faculty member mentioned the importance of candidates’
observations of pupils “to see what ways they learn best” (Rasha, interview, 5/22/08).
She went on to say, “…[candidates in the Master’s program] need to consider all pupils’
learning, not some, not most, not a few, but each pupil. They seem to have some sort of
breakthrough with that understanding.” Another instructor, a full-time elementary school
teacher herself, adds that researchers learning how to “own the problem, solve the
problem” is “empowering.” She contrasts an inquiry stance with teachers “complaining,
or falling back on reactions that are counterproductive to learning” (Lisa, interview, 5/18/08).
In general, the use of the Master’s Project is seen as effective in creating a more
professional program. Faculty identify the critical importance of graduate candidates
understanding research, but identified two obstacles: (a) the difficulty of sustained
research and writing for part-time candidates and (b) the possibility that other alternatives
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
49
for a culminating experience may be as meaningful (e.g., community action or service).
In addition to defining how writing might be improved, faculty members were concerned
about the originality and applicability of the candidates’ chosen topics, and the relevance
of the research to the classroom teacher. Considering the opportunities for, and
limitations to, classroom research, it becomes critical that novice researchers have
support and collaboration of mentors to fully realize the potential of action research.
Better Professional Writing Instruction. A number of faculty pointed to their
candidates’ writing as “below expectations” and as one said, “the biggest barrier for
some” (Lisa, interview, 5/18/08). Others indicated frustration with still having to “do so
much work on mechanics with graduate students” and work with struggling candidates
who self-report they have never written “an extended piece of writing before.” Faculty
view the difficulty candidates have with writing action research analyses as thinking
problems and some admit to being “troubled,” as one said, that “we have teachers
teaching writing who apparently cannot write” (Lisa, interview, 5/18/08).
Why require an action research project and not some other culminating project or
program effort? This was a key question that emerged from our research. Faculty
indicated the frustration of having too little evidence to make claims about the impact of
the action research masters project on future teachers’ practice, echoing McTaggart’s
(1994) concern that action research can become little more than a procedure. One
member pointed out that although strong writers “complete the assignment with ease,”
these same candidates seem “lost for answers” when it comes to responding to “specific
questions regarding elementary students” (Jessica, interview, 5/20/08). Other faculty
focus on school climate or school cultures as either supportive of such research activities
or not. One was optimistic about inquiry projects candidates had undertaken with
cooperating teachers and suggested that host teachers should be involved in the action
research cycle with candidate interns. Another pointed to recent institutional grants and a
professional development school model in the area that supports action research as
positive signs.
Some identified a disconnect between teaching and learning in public schools.
One faculty member said that “only outcomes are important now, not the process”
(Mary, interview, 5/16/08). Our success as a teacher education institution is tied to the
ability of teachers to change the culture of the classroom and school. This study
established that using action research and applying its tenets seems to be happening
marginally in the classroom for some teachers, but seemingly, not at all for the school
settings in which they live and work.
Action Research and Relevance to the Field
The development of critical thinking that comes out of the research and writing
process is, in essence, what changes graduate candidates’ minds about their identities as
teachers. At the point where critical thinking begins to develop, the greater educational
environment (i.e., what is published, the body of research that has come before them),
is valued and seen as an added insight into existing issues or problems endemic to school
settings. Candidates become aware that the wheel need not be reinvented, that practice
should be informed, and that practice is more often than not improved by the application
of research findings.
Schon (1987) described the development of the reflective practitioner, wherein one
starts out thinking most about their own actions as a teacher instead of what happens to
50
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
the learners in their classes. Critical transformations may occur through the action
research process, which often moves the practitioner from that self-centered perspective
into the more appropriate other-centered perspective. The research and writing processes
appear to document and concretize that transformation. Support and collaboration with a
public school mentor (administrator, teacher, or resource person) may also add to the
perceived relevance of the project. If such a transformation occurs and teachers see a
cause-and-effect relationship between their research and systematic actions and results
with children, this evidence causes them to believe in themselves and feel empowered to
make positive changes in their environments. In addition, a school where collaboration
occurs may become a rich venue for sustained design and execution of relevant action
research (Radford, 2007).
A critical mass of teachers and principals engaged with the idea is necessary to
provide impetus, encouragement, and support before wider applications are
commonplace. Can school leaders be deliberate, lead by example, and assist faculty to
apply for money and write grants? In this study, some graduate candidates identified
writing improvement based on critical thinking skills and reflection, self-reported
evidence that teacher growth had been aided by action research. Yet, few reported any
widespread support or engagement in the process, even in instances in which a principal
had remarked on the success of their research.
Implications for Education
Action research, as predicted in the 1980s and 1990s (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993;
Oja & Smulyan, 1989; Schon, 1983), has had an effect on creating high-quality teacher
education programs and, to some degree, has affected teachers’ empowerment in their
own professional development. In this study, an emphasis on individual, research-based
action research projects elevated the program’s academic and professional perspectives.
Faculty and candidate data support conclusions that candidates’ writing skills, critical
thinking, and teacher voice in writing improved during the decade under study. After
using a classroom-based focus for methods courses and research projects, some teachers
who graduated from the Master’s program indicated an increased degree of investment in
using research.
The study revealed positive learning applications after completing action research, as
evidenced in teacher self-reports of improved skills in reading literature and identifying
and solving problems of practice. Paralleling the conclusions of Green and Brown
(2006), Beers (2001), and Hendricks (2009), action research can be a positive vehicle to
enhance teacher development, both through achievement in and meaningfulness of their
graduate program and through implementation in their classroom practice. The need to
expand efforts to directly teach writing skills along with research methods is a central
emphasis for graduate program improvement. Faculty members perceived some value in
helping novice teachers understand and conduct research, particularly the improved
critical thinking and writing skills necessary to professionals. As in Schon (1987) and
Noftke, Scott, and Gibbons (2001), the outcomes of educational research should be the
eventual empowering of teachers and creative control over improving the classroom
learning environment and positive student achievement. Outcomes of this study provide
rather limited evidence of strong teacher empowerment, creative control, and improved
learning environment. The study provides no evidence in the category of connection to
improved student achievement. The involvement of mentors in design and execution of
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
51
the study seemingly contributed to the improved quality and perception of the research
project.
Indicators from the data results have provided impetus for change in the structure
and delivery of the program. Efforts to provide process-writing instruction and
assessment in all courses throughout the program are being implemented. As evidenced
in the faculty feedback and in the evaluation of the projects themselves, the need for
requirements for substantive writing throughout the program, along with sufficient
criticism and feedback on writing skills is a critical conclusion of our research project.
The action research project empowered teachers to seek and create knowledge about
their classrooms and the students who will benefit from this knowledge. While little
direct evidence was found to establish benefits for P-12 students as projected by Gibbons
and colleagues (1994), further monitoring of the cohorts of teachers who have performed
action research may provide a connection to increased classroom effectiveness. The
participant responses did not identify any effects of action research on their school sites
in general, but individual perspectives may be inadequate to examine the larger picture.
The general improvement of quality of projects and attitudes toward action research were
encouraging. Further research may focus on the effects of mentor teachers and the
school environment on outcomes and attitudes toward action research.
It is difficult to establish the connection between teachers who have been trained in
research methods and have conducted action research aimed at improving their
classroom practice, to subsequent improvements in the quality of education for children.
Faculty and graduate candidate data support continued investment in an action research
project to focus classroom teachers on the benefits and opportunities presented by
reflective practice supported through research activity. To that end, we will sustain our
own research observations and continue to monitor action research effects on teachers
and classroom learners, developing alternative school-based perspectives for
future studies.
References
Adler, S. (2003). Dilemmas of action research. Action in Teacher Education.
25(1), 76-82.
Auger, W., & Wideman, R. (2000). Using action research to open doors to life-long
learning. Education, 121(1), 120-127.
Ax, J., Ponte, P., & Brouwer, N. (2008). Action research in initial teacher education:
An Explorative study. Education Action Research, 16(1), 55-72.
Beers, M. (2001). Why management research findings are unimplementable: An action
science perspective. Reflections, 2, 58-65.
Benton, C., & Schillo, J. (2004). School and university collaboration partners:
A model for collegial support of literacy and professional development. Action in
Teacher Education (25) 4.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education:
An introduction to theory and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allen & Bacon.
Brock, P. A. (2004). From capstones to touchstones: Preparative assessment and its use
in teacher education. Assessment Update, 16(1), 8-9.
Brown, M., & Macatangay, A. (2002). The impact of action research for professional
development: Case studies in two Manchester schools. International Journal of
Research & Method in Education, 25(1), 35-45.
52
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
Cain, T., Holmes, M., Larrett, A., & Mattock, J. (2007). Literature-informed, one-turn
action research: Three cases and a commentary. British Educational Research
Journal. (33)1, 91-106.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S, (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge
and action research. Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Corey, S.M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1929). Quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action.
New York: Minton Balch & Company.
Elliott, L., Daily, N. L, Fredricks, L., & Graham, M. S. (2008). Transitioning from
students to professionals: Using a writing across the curriculum model to
scaffold portfolio development. The Teacher Educator, 43(1), 46 - 58
Gibbons, M., Limoges, H., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S, Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994).
The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in
contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
Green, S.K., & Brown, M. (2006). Promoting action research and problem solving
among teacher candidates: One elementary school’s journey. Action in Teacher
Education, 27(4), 45-53.
Henderson, M., Hunt, S., & Wester, C. (1999). Action research: A survey of AACTEMember Institutions. Education, 119, 663-669.
Hendricks, C. (2009).Using modeling and creating a research discourse community to
teach a doctoral action research course. International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 2-14.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.
Lytle, S., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1994). Inquiry, knowledge, and practice. In S.
Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform:
Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education
(pp. 22-51). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McTaggart, L. (1994). Participatory action research: Issues in theory and practice.
Educational Action Research, 2(3), 313-337.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult. In J. Mezirow & Associates,
Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress, 3-33.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mills, G. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Noftke, S., & Stevenson, R. (1995). Educational action research: Becoming
practically critical. New York: Teachers College Press.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking science: Knowledge and the
public in an age of uncertainty. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Oja, S. N., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental
approach. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.
Papastephanou, M. (2006). Philosophical research and educational action research.
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40(2), 187-203.
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
53
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.
NY: Basic Books.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective, (2nd ed).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yorks, L. (2005). Adult learning and the generation of new knowledge
and meaning: Creating liberating spaces for fostering adult learning through
practitioner-based collaborative action inquiry. Teachers College Record. 107
(6), 1217-1228.
Author Biographies
Cynthia J. Benton, Professor of Education at the State University of New York
at Cortland, teaches research methods and arts education and has published in the
areas of teacher development, the teaching profession, and gender.
Email: [email protected]
Susan K. Stratton, Assistant Professor in Childhood/Early Childhood Department
at State University of New York at Cortland, has research interests in longitudinal
studies of preservice teachers’ writing and science method instruction.
Email: [email protected]
Karen Stearns, Assistant Professor of English Education at the State University of
New York at Cortland, teaches young adult literature and English education.
Email: [email protected]
54
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
55
Appendix B
Program Graduate Survey
Seven-Item Electronic Survey, Emailed to 72 Program Graduates
Electronically Mailed Survey Questions 1-7
(5-point Likert Scale: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)
I found the Master’s project useful to me in understanding a wide variety of research.
The project was useful as a way of better understanding how teachers solve
problems in the classroom.
The process of doing the Master’s project was very much like what I see
classroom teachers doing to solve problems.
I use some of the techniques and ideas from my Master’s project in my current
teaching practices.
I believe that completing the Master’s project has provided me with a valuable
learning experience that helped me develop as a professional teacher.
The things that I learned in doing the Master’s project have influenced the way I teach.
I would be interested in trying another research project in the future.
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
56
Benton, Stratton, and Stearns
Appendix C
Faculty Writing Survey
In the interest of improving our graduate programs in the Childhood/Early Childhood
Department, we have surveyed graduates and would now invite your input on the writing
component of the programs. Please complete the short survey below.
How would you rate SUNY Cortland’s Master’s degree graduates compared to other
teachers in the state?
Strongly proficient, exceeds other teachers____
Equally proficient____
Less proficient____
How valuable is conducting an action research project to our Master’s Program(s)?
Not valuable____
Somewhat valuable____
Not relevant____
Quite valuable____
Very valuable____
Approximately what percentage of course credit do you assign to research and writing?
Circle one.
5 percent
10 percent
20 percent
30 percent
50 percent
75 percent
Greater than 75 percent
Are you currently conducting any type of action research?
Yes____
No____
What most influences individual candidates’ research projects?
Their own thinking____
Other courses and faculty input____
Current events ____
Other, please describe below____
How strongly are your course requirements related to the reading, research, and writing
outcomes of the program?
Highly related____
Somewhat related ____
Slightly related____
Not related____
Please add any comments, ideas, or observations about the research and writing requirements of Childhood/Early Childhood Graduate Programs.
To what degree are you convinced the research project should be continued in our
program?
Definitely should continue____
Should continue____
Neutral____
Needs reconsideration____
Probably discontinue____
Definitely discontinue____
57
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
A Regional Survey of Teacher Leadership:
A Catalyst for Re-examining
Leadership Preparation
Kathleen Dickinson Rockwood
Manhattanville College
Debra J. Thomas
Rockland Teachers’ Center Institute
Ernest J. Piermarini
St. Thomas Aquinas College
Ronald D. Valenti
College of New Rochelle
Abstract
This exploratory study emerged from the work of a regional prekindergarten-18
leadership preparation consortium that sought to create a descriptive profile of teacher
leadership in the Lower Hudson Region of New York State that would inform leadership
preparation practices. Two parallel surveys were distributed electronically during the
2006-2007 academic year, one to administrators and a second one to identified teacher
leaders in the Lower Hudson Region of New York State. In this paper we report the
results of this regional study and link our findings to the current national literature. We
highlight steps that we have taken to be more proactive in supporting educators who are
teacher leaders and then discuss possible implications for other leadership preparation
programs. This consortium, while organic in development, has become a unique,
replicable model that represents the many voices of the educational community.
Together we created a pathway to blend our voices, share best practices, and shape the
scope of our regional study and evolving work together.
***
The concept of teacher leadership and the idea of empowering teachers is certainly
not a new idea. For over 20 years there have been calls for major reform in education
that stressed the importance of increasing teacher professionalism. The National
Commission on Excellence in Teaching (1983) emphasized that teachers’ roles must be
viewed differently. The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (1986) and the
Holmes Group (1986) stressed the importance of developing a profession that could
meet the challenges of the times. The notion of distributed leadership, where teachers
assume a variety of leadership roles, emerged as one of the recommendations the
Holmes Group endorsed to facilitate the redesign of schools.
This exploratory study emerged from the work of a regional PreK-18 leadership preparation consortium, represented by teacher center directors, union leaders, higher education
58
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 5, Number 1
Fall / Winter 2010
59
faculty, and public school administrators in the Lower Hudson Region of New York. The
group decided to create a descriptive profile of teacher leadership in the region that
would inform leadership preparation practices. During one of the consortium meetings,
the question was raised whether teacher leaders were a neglected pool of individuals who
deserved more professional development support that could be addressed as a
consortium. While the group—authors included—observed teacher leadership as a
growing phenomenon in the region, it had no data to substantiate professional
development needs or prevalent school district practices.
The authors set out to develop a snapshot of teacher leadership in our region that
could inform future professional development decisions and planning that would support
teacher leaders’ needs. Teacher leadership was defined broadly as “those individuals who
perform leadership functions, either through formally or informally designated
leadership roles that do not require administrative certification.” Our primary questions
of the study included the following: (a) What are the varied roles and responsibilities of
teacher leaders? (b) What knowledge and skills are required of teacher leaders to do their
jobs effectively? (c) What types of support are teacher leaders provided at the school and
district levels? and (d) What are the career aspirations of teacher leaders? In this paper
we report the results of the regional study and link our findings to the current
national literature.
Review of Supporting Literature
Teacher Leader Roles and Responsibilities
According to York-Barr and Duke’s (2004) meta-analysis of the teacher leadership
literature, there are some important differences between the conception and practice of
teacher leadership roles and responsibilities. These differences are in part due to the fact
that there is no agreed-upon definition of teacher leadership or common practices that
formalize teacher leader roles and responsibilities within schools. Johnson and
Donaldson (2007) found that teacher leaders are often left to define their own roles and
responsibilities. York-Barr and Duke (2004) expressed concern that “the construct of
teacher leadership is not well-defined, conceptually or operationally” (p. 255). Other
scholars advocated for a more flexible and broad definition of teacher leadership to
capture their changing roles and responsibilities, both formal and informal
(Gabriel, 2005; Harris, 2003; Muijs & Harris, 2007).
Despite the varying conceptions of teacher leadership, there are numerous examples
of teachers as leaders in the literature (Ackerman & MacKenzie, 2006; Barth, 2001;
Danielson, 2006, Dozier, 2007; Frost & Durrant, 2003; Harrison & Killion, 2007;
Johnson & Donaldson, 2007; Institute for Educational Leadership, 2008; York-Barr &
Duke, 2004). For example, Frost and Durrant (2003) examined teacher leadership roles
through the lens of “learner-centered development work” (p.180). Teachers in their case
studies were viewed as change agents who assumed leadership roles that impacted
teaching and learning in their classrooms as they engaged in action research. Danielson
(2006) assumed a similar stance as Frost and Durrant in her emphasis on the importance
of teacher leaders’ work being grounded in making student and classroom decisions that
are usually transacted in informal ways. Dozier’s (2007) online survey of accomplished
teachers revealed teachers are being recognized and tapped for their talents, but they want
to exert more influence. A majority of her sample of reputed teacher leaders are eager
60
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
to expand their roles in the policy arena to impact substantive decision making within the
school or district.
York-Barr and Duke (2004) developed a helpful conceptual framework that
categorizes the multiple teacher leader roles over 20 years into the following broad
dimensions of practice: “coordination management; school or district curriculum work;
professional development of colleagues; participant in school change/improvement;
parent and community involvement; contributions to the profession; and preservice
teacher education” (p. 266).
Knowledge and Skills Required of Teacher Leaders
The literature supports the stance that teacher leaders’ professional development
needs should be viewed as ongoing, individualized, and occurring in different places and
times, including formal and job-embedded training (York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Leadership training can start with preservice teachers. Lamlech and Hertzog (1998) tracked a
purposely selected graduate group of individuals who had been teaching 2 to 4 years.
They had been involved in a program that devoted two semesters to collaborative work
and collegial coaching about teaching and were considered good teachers when they
completed their student teaching. After surveying the teachers and their principals, and
then conducting follow-up interviews with the teachers and principals, they found
that 13 of the 14 teachers demonstrated leadership skills and professional behavior that
were usually seen in more experienced teacher leaders. Areas that were cited by
Lemlech and Hertzog (1998) included: (a) professional participation, commitment
(e.g., as demonstrated by active participation on school and district committees, comfort
in communicating with more experienced colleagues about their pedagogy and
instructional practices); (b) self-development (e.g., active initiation of collaborative
relationships with colleagues to further their professional growth); (c) professional
relationships (e.g., assumption of broader professional responsibilities and active
decision making in the school and district). It seems that school district policies and
supportive cultures, coupled with the teacher preparation program’s model of
collaborative coaching, impacted the preservice teachers’ level of involvement.
Richardson (2003) concluded that administrators should focus on expanding
teachers’ knowledge and skills to support decision making. Principals should help
teachers understand the big picture and the larger context beyond their classrooms that
impact teaching and learning. Professional development should focus first on helping
teachers become excellent teachers and communicators (Richardson, 2003). Then as
teachers are ready to assume various leadership roles (such as literacy coach,
professional development presenter, etc.), they should be supported to develop the
knowledge and skills required of the specific leadership roles. Lack of targeted
professional development has been cited as a problem; with assumptions made that
teachers already have the requisite knowledge and skills (Dozier, 2007). York-Barr and
Duke (2004) summarized the three content themes for teacher leadership development
that emerged from the literature:
Continuing to learn about and demonstrate advanced curricular, instructional, and
assessment practices; understanding the school culture and how to initiate and
support change in schools; and developing the knowledge and skills necessary to
support the development of colleagues in individual, small group, and large group
interactions. (p. 282)
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
61
Organizational Support of Teacher Leaders
Much of what is needed to support teacher leaders in a school is a result of a
favorable organizational culture. This is illustrated by Beattie’s (2002) research that
focused on the culture of a high school in Canada where the culture embodied a learning
community. All teachers rotated into teacher leader roles for a two-year period. In this
culture, “the leaders and learners are inextricably interconnected” (p. 200). Beattie noted
that this dynamic learning community flourished because certain structures and
processes were in place. Specific attention was directed to modeling leadership
behaviors and mentoring individuals to assume leadership roles. Similarly, the culture of
professional development schools enables preservice teacher candidates to assume
leadership roles and demonstrate leadership skills that are seldom demonstrated in more
traditional school settings (Teitel, 2001).
There appears to be strong consensus among researchers (Anderson, 2004; Johnson
& Donaldson, 2007; Institute for Educational Leadership, 2008; Moller & Pankake,
2006; York-Barr & Duke, 2004) that the building-level leader or principal plays a pivotal
role in providing continuous support to teacher leaders. Support is demonstrated by
creating the opportunities for teacher leaders to play a decision-making role in the
school, by helping teachers balance priorities and tensions, and by assuming a sustained
mentoring role that exposes the teacher leaders to the “obstacles and opportunities”
within their school community (Frost & Durrant, 2003, p.180). York-Barr & Duke
(2004) stressed that one of the strongest themes in the literature was “the notion that the
emergence of leadership is fostered within the context of a learning community—big
(e.g., school or district) or small (e.g., small groups)” (p. 282).
The district’s central administration can play an important support role as well.
Mangin’s (2007) exploratory study highlighted the important role that central office can
play in communicating to building principals. Mangin found that the teacher leader
instructional specialists received the most support from building principals when central
office sustained ongoing communication with the building principals about the
instructional specialists’ roles, responsibilities, and progress. Similarly, Johnson and
Donaldson (2007) stressed that “the roles must be introduced deliberately and supported
fully” (p. 12). York-Barr and Duke (2004) identified categories of conditions that
influence teacher leaders’ effectiveness that combine building and district roles that
include: (a) cultivating a culture that supports and respects teacher leadership; (b)
clarifying roles, relationships and responsibilities; and (c) creating structures that are
responsive to teacher leaders’ needs and scope of work (e.g., sufficient time to meet
with colleagues).
Support also should be sought from other organizations. With the help of an external
partner, such as a university, inquiry-based work can be fully supported in the school.
Frost and Durrant (2003) recommended that this could be done by: “(a) scaffolding a
process [that would encourage] reflection, planning, and strategic action; (b) developing
support groups or critical friends for inquiry-based work; and (c) developing a network
to extend the discourse” (p. 180). Providing networking opportunities for teacher leaders
to share their practices and to reduce their isolation has received increasing attention as
an important support (Berry, Norton, & Byrd, 2007; Dozier, 2007).
Career Aspirations of Teacher Leaders
Moller and Pankake (2006) provide a helpful framework for viewing a teacher’s
career. They warn that “principals cannot make assumptions about who will be willing to lead”
62
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
(p. 50). They note that there is a growing trend that beginning teachers are looking for
leadership challenges outside of the classroom. Often these early career teachers bring
more enthusiasm to a leadership role than some seasoned teachers. Moller and
Pankake’s compelling finding is noteworthy; teachers’ interest in assuming leadership
roles can be found at any career stage, contingent on the building-level support.
It is well recognized that there are many tensions and challenges associated with
teachers aspiring to or assuming leadership roles. Common challenges cited by
researchers include: time constraints, poorly defined roles, fear of leadership role,
administrative support, balancing roles, and hostility from colleagues (Danielson, 2006;
Trautman, 2005; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Fear of leadership and crossing over to the
other side appears to be a fear that exists even among teachers who are enrolled in an
administrative preparation program (Trautman, 2005). One can only conjecture that the
fear response is based on past conditioning in school cultures where formal demarcations
exist between teachers and administrators. School culture exerts strong influence on who
is willing to become a teacher leader or future administrator.
The scholarship and professional practice literature reviewed to this point in the
paper provides an overview of teacher leadership at the beginning of the 21st century.
National trends and patterns as well as established viewpoints and perspectives on an
issue, however, do not necessarily accurately reflect the context of teacher leadership in a
particular region or area. With that in mind, the consortium, located in the Lower
Hudson Region of New York State discussed earlier, decided to create a profile of teacher
leadership in the region served by the consortium. The region represents three counties in
the Lower Hudson area, north of New York City.
Our research is an example of applied research that was designed and conducted to
inform and guide professional development for educational leadership preparation in the
Lower Hudson Region. A secondary purpose of the study was to determine the extent to
which teacher leaders offered an untapped pool of individuals who were interested in
future school administration roles.
Methodology
The study focused on answering the following primary questions: (a) What are the
varied roles and responsibilities of teacher leaders in the region? (b) What knowledge
and skills are required of teacher leaders to do their jobs effectively? (c) What types of
support are teacher leaders provided at the school and district levels? and (d) What are
the career aspirations of teacher leaders?
The researchers used Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com), an online survey
creation tool, to distribute two parallel surveys electronically during the 2006-2007
academic year. One survey was sent to administrators and another one to identified
teacher leaders in the Lower Hudson Region of New York. The survey defined teacher
leaders as individuals who were in informal or formally designated teacher leader roles
that did not require administration certification or entail administration responsibilities.
Organizational e-mail lists were used to distribute to an administrator sample that
included public school superintendents, principals, assistant principals, and headmasters
of non-public schools. The teacher leader sample included public and non-public school
teacher leaders who were identified by members of the consortium. The consortium
members included regional teacher center directors, union leadership, school and district
administrators, and an area college educational leadership department chair.
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
63
Organizational networks were employed to identify and distribute the surveys to teacher
leaders who had been recognized as leaders by these organizations. The networks drew
upon consortium member representation that included the Lower Hudson Teacher Center
Network, New York State United Teachers, the Lower Hudson Council of School
Superintendents, the New York Association of Independent Schools, and a college
graduate leadership program.
The survey questions were developed by the two lead researchers, who have
considerable knowledge and experience in educational leadership; one chairs a
leadership preparation program and the other is a director of a regional teacher center.
Then, to ensure validity, the surveys went through a series of substantive reviews by the
consortium members, with a final review from another nationally recognized quantitative
researcher in a leadership preparation program who was not associated with the study.
Given this rigorous review process, a formal field test of the survey was not initiated.
Both the School Administrator and the Teacher Leader surveys included 16 parallel
questions that represented a combination of five-point Likert and categorical response.
Three questions also included the option of adding written comments. Two additional
questions were directed only to the teacher leader sample regarding their career
aspirations and to the administrator sample further probing teacher leader contributions
and effectiveness in working with administrators. The survey questions covered the
following categories: (a) respondent demographic information (e.g., school type and
level, community type, years experience, age, gender; (b) teacher leader roles and
responsibilities; (c) knowledge and skills required of teacher leaders; (d) organizational
support of teacher leaders; (e) how teacher leaders assume leadership roles in school/
district; and (f) teacher leader impact on school improvement efforts. We made a
decision to utilize more familiar teacher leader role designations than to draw upon
York-Barr and Duke’s (2004) role conceptual framework because we felt that these titles
would be easier for the respondents to address. In later analysis we compared the
responses to York-Barr and Duke’s framework.
The study was approved by the College’s IRB Committee. Since the surveys were
distributed electronically, respondent consent, along with confidentiality disclosures,
were incorporated into the survey directions and did not require a signature. The survey
responses were anonymous. It should be noted that not all respondents answered every
question and this impacted the results, with some categories not adding up to 100%.
The survey data were analyzed using the Microsoft EXCEL spreadsheet functions to
compute mean percentiles for each of the categorical and Likert Scale questions. After
creating a summary composite of the Teacher Leader and the Administrators surveys,
further analysis examined differences among subcategories (e.g., gender, age, grade
level, and public/private school setting). A specific comparison was made between
teacher leader respondents’ age and expressed interest in a future administrative position.
The qualitative data obtained from respondent comments to several of the questions were
analyzed using a constant comparative method that resulted in identifying specific
categories and themes.
Survey Findings
Respondent Profiles
Of the 149 teacher leader respondents, 79% were female who represented a broad
range of teaching experience, with 26% reporting 25 years or more experience. The sample
64
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
65
represented an age span that included: 20-29 (4%); 30-39 (26%); 40-50 (24%); 50-60
(36%); and 60+ (10%). Over two thirds of the respondents worked in suburban schools,
with the rest represented in small cities (16%), large cities (8%), and rural (2%).
This sample accurately captured our region. Over half of the respondents reported they
worked in public schools and 10% worked in private schools, revealing that 40% of the
respondents did not identify their school community types. The largest number of
teacher leader respondents were at the elementary level (46%), followed by high school
(34%), and middle school (20%).
Approximately 300 surveys were distributed electronically to administrators, with a
20% response rate. The administrator respondents were evenly represented in gender and
setting (e.g., public versus non-public). A large percentage (43%) of the administrator
respondents worked in the central office, with the other respondents at a high school
(23%), middle school (14%), and elementary school (20%). More of the administrators
worked in suburban schools (38%), with the rest represented in large cities (18%), small
cities (4%), and rural (6%). One third of the respondents did not report their school
district community type. The administrator respondents represented extensive experience, with 43% having 25 or more years in administration and 78% having 11 through
25 or more years of experience.
Teacher Leader Roles and Responsibilities
The national data indicated teacher leaders assume many, varied leadership roles,
and that was also the case in this regional survey, with many different titles and nuanced
responsibilities. The most prevalent roles cited by both administrators and teacher
leaders were that of mentor and a team leader. Other often-mentioned roles included:
union leader, department chair or coordinator, committee chair, coach, and staff
developer. Teacher leaders frequently assumed multiple roles; some reported this created
additional stress, especially when the roles had conflicting or overlapping time demands.
No difference was noted between public and private school teacher leader respondents in
terms of the number and diversity of teacher leader roles. Table 1 captured some role
differences among the elementary and secondary levels. Department coordinators were
represented at the middle and high school levels and grade-level team leaders were
commonly represented at the elementary level. When given the option to identify other
specific teacher leader roles, 18% of the teacher leaders sample noted 39 different role
designations. Categories that emerged included: 18% staff developer roles (e.g., teacher
trainer, lead in-service trainer); 20% lead teacher roles (e.g., project team leader, content
area team leader); 13% instructional specialist/facilitator roles; 8% dean of faculty roles;
8% held positions in professional organization boards; and the remaining 33% expanded
on the categories already designated on the survey.
Teacher leaders assume their roles in a variety of ways. Formal appointment was the
most prevalent, as indicated by 67% of the teacher leaders and 82% of the administrators.
Formal appointment entailed applying for a leadership position and then the school/
district formally announced (often at a school board meeting) the designation. Additional
compensation did not always accompany formal appointment. Volunteering was the
second most common means of moving into a teacher leadership role, as indicated by
48% of teacher leaders and 64% of administrators. In this situation, a leadership need
would be identified by administration and a teacher leader would volunteer. For 25% of
the teacher leaders, a leadership role evolved informally, with no formal designation.
Knowledge and Skills Needed
Table 2 summarizes specific areas where teacher leaders need more knowledge and
skills in performing their responsibilities by comparing the teacher leader and
administrator responses. Respondents could check more than one response. Response
choices included: (a) facilitating effective meetings; (b) negotiating conflicts; (c) engaging colleagues in effective problem solving process; (d) becoming more knowledgeable
about effective pedagogical practices; (e) developing effective coaching strategies; (f)
utilizing student performance data to close achievement gap; and (g) other.
66
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
Both teacher leader (60%) and administrator (70%) respondents identified “engaging
colleagues in effective problem solving” as a professional development priority.
Administrators identified more pervasive training needs by rating all of the other five
knowledge/skill options with similar secondary importance; while teacher leader
respondents appeared to identify needs that were specific to their leadership responsibilities and school/grade-level demands. A second common priority identified by the
elementary (41%), middle (43%) and high school (41%) respondents was “utilizing
student performance data to close the achievement gap.” Elementary respondents noted
equal importance (41%) to learning how to “negotiating conflict situations.” Whereas,
middle- level teachers (40%) identified “becoming more knowledgeable about effective
pedagogical practices” as a third priority.
The majority of administrators (87% strongly agree/agree) indicated that it is
important for teacher leaders to know how to work with school administrators. This
question was only directed to the administrator sample. It should be noted that a couple
of administrator comments raised a question about the wording and possible misinterpretation of this question.
Means of Supporting Teacher Leaders
Table 3 summarizes the means of supporting teacher leaders, as reported by teacher
leaders and administrators. Providing stipends for the additional work was cited by both
teacher leaders (67%) and administrators (77%) as the primary means of support.
Ongoing communication with the immediate supervisor was another important means of
support, as noted by 58% of teacher leaders and 64% of the administrators. Supervisory
support was identified as a primary support for teacher leaders in private schools. Other
supports were reported at a higher level among the administrator (A) respondents than
the teacher leaders (TL) that include: targeted professional development (46% TL; 64%
A); release time for the additional responsibilities (40% TL; 69% A); and coaching
support (11% TL; 41% A). None of the private school respondents reported receiving
release time. It also should be noted that 10% of the teacher leaders and 9% of the
administrator respondents indicated that no support was available. Only 25% of the
teacher leaders reported receiving professional development that was targeted to their
specific roles and responsibilities.
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
67
Comments from administrators point to potential barriers to support.
One administrator noted,
District leadership has strongly supported the development of teacher leaders.
Theirony is that the teachers’ association has not. Our efforts to promote teacher
leaders as coaches/instructional specialists/staff developers have met with stiff,
persistent resistance from vocal members of the teachers’ association.
Another administrator pointed out another critical problem.
As a district, we are often involved in too many initiatives at one time. This dilutes
effectiveness and wears out our teacher leaders. Teachers lately report a tendency to
use our teacher leaders as “rubber stamps” to imply input when in fact decisions are
made prior to the leaders’ involvement.
Interest in a Future Administrative Position
Two survey questions queried teacher leader aspirations and were only directed to
the teacher leader sample. It is very clear that teacher leaders value their roles and enjoy
keeping their work close to the classroom and student contact. When asked whether they
plan on continuing to work as teacher leaders for years to come, 80% agreed strongly or
agreed. Approximately 50% of the teacher leaders have no interest in pursuing a position in
administration. Of this group, 10% are ready to retire. Yet, 25% of the respondents are
interested in an eventual administrative role. The readiness of this group of respondents
to assume administrative responsibilities is varied. There was a weak but negative
correlation regarding age or experience and interest in administration. The younger
teacher leaders were more likely to have aspirations to advance their leadership responsibilities than the older teacher leaders. Additionally, private school teacher leaders were
less interested in administration than were the public school teacher leaders.
Conclusions and Discussion of Implications
In this section we focus our conclusions on the most prominent findings that surfaced for each question and refer to the literature to compare our conclusions. We align
68
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
our conclusions with a discussion of general implications for leadership preparation,
followed by some specific actions we have taken as a PreK-18 consortium. The consortium, while organic in development has become a unique, replicable model that represents the many voices of the educational community. As partners, we are teachers and
administrators, professors, union leaders and policy makers. Together we have created a
pathway to blend our voices, share best practices and shape the scope of our work
together. We have done this in a respectful manner that honors each partner’s perspective
and expertise.
Roles and Responsibilities of Teacher Leaders
Our findings suggest that teacher leaders in our region assume multiple roles and
responsibilities within the school and district settings. Teacher leaders’ titles and
functions vary across districts, detailing a wide range of leadership opportunities. This
regional finding resonates with the national literature (York-Barr & Duke, 2004) that
portrays a close relationship between the emergence of teacher leader roles and specific
school context needs. Using York-Barr and Duke’s role categories, the most prevalent
role cited by both teacher leaders and administrators was that of mentor, reflecting a
professional development function. Other high ranked roles included grade-level team
leader and coordinator that reflected a management function. Roles in union leadership
reflected contributions to the profession that go beyond the school district. District
committee chair or representative encompassed another high ranked area, that could
include curriculum as well as other school/district planning and decision making functions.
Our findings indicated a noteworthy difference between teacher leader and administrator responses. While approximately two thirds of the teacher leaders reported that they
are satisfied with their roles and effectiveness in these roles, one third expressed some
level of reservation or disagreement. Whereas, the overwhelming majority of
administrator respondents reported that teacher leaders are effective in their roles and do
contribute to school improvement efforts. Lack of role clarity, a problem noted in the
literature (York-Barr & Duke, 2004), was noted by some teacher leader respondents’
comments, and may be an important contributing factor that supports teacher leader role
satisfaction and effectiveness.
Our study is germane to leadership programs that have partnership relationships with
PreK-12 schools. Having this type of relationship can provide the opportunity to begin a
dialogue about teacher leadership within a district, focusing on how teachers’ talents are
identified and how the teacher leader roles and responsibilities are defined. York-Barr
and Duke (2004) recommend that “the likelihood of being successful as a teacher leader
is increased if roles and expectations are mutually shaped and negotiated by teacher
leaders, their colleagues, and principals on the basis of context-specific (and changing)
instructional and improvement needs” (p. 288). While our consortium has initiated a
dialogue about teacher leadership in our region, we have not addressed the importance of
role clarity in an explicit manner.
Knowledge and Skills of Teacher Leaders
Most significantly, the majority of the teacher leaders reported that they do not
receive professional development that is targeted to their specific roles and responsibilities.
Both administrators and teacher leaders agreed that developing effective skills in facilitating
problem solving with colleagues is one priority area. Another area that the teacher leader
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
69
sample ranked high was “utilizing student performance data to close achievement gap.”
Grade-level distinctions were noted for other knowledge and skill needs. Whereas,
administrators rated all six knowledge/skill area options as important.
The knowledge and skills identified by teacher leaders can lead to the design of
targeted professional development. Leadership programs can develop and provide
support services that encourage a discrete set of skills, knowledge, and dispositions that
support teacher leadership. These programs can be delivered through in-service,
conferences, workshops and/or graduate- level opportunities leading to leadership
certification. They can be offered in collaboration with other educational service
providers (e.g., regional education service centers, teacher centers).
Our consortium’s leadership preparation program provides a core foundation of
knowledge and skill development in an advanced certificate Teacher Leader program.
The courses include: (a) Leading a Learning Organization as a Teacher Leader; (b)
Communicating Effectively as a Teacher Leader; (c) Supporting Student Learning as a
Teacher Leader; (d) Monitoring Student Learning as a Teacher Leader; and (e) Making
Effective Decisions and Solving Problems. The content of this program was informed by
the literature but it evolved through a collaborative process with consortium partners.
Members of our consortium included area teacher center directors, union leadership,
administrator representatives, and the college department chair. The college department
chair shared the literature with consortium members, along with a proposed program
outline. This information served as a catalyst for productive input and exchange about
specific types of learning experiences that should be built into the program. While the
college department chair facilitated the process, program development decision making
resided with the group, with consensus as our working norm. Decisions encompassed the
course content, field-based experiences, means to recruit potential candidates, and roles
that members would assume once the program started. One partner organization hosted
the program. Another partner provided administrative support. All partners promoted the
program through their networks and media sources.
The ideal companion to this program would be district-level support that targets
additional role specific professional development. We are striving to reach this level of
coordination with our partner districts. Our next step will be to assume more of a critical
friend role with our consortium partner districts by advocating for on-going,
contextualized professional development for teacher leaders that would take into account
the school needs, the leadership role, and the teacher leader’s development. Our teacher
leader program provides an important launching point for teachers, many of whom never
identified themselves as leaders, but the message we want to convey is that the learning
and growth must be continuous and should not be bounded by a formal program.
Organizational Support of Teacher Leadership
Stipends are the most common form of support for teacher leaders in public
schools; whereas, in private schools close communication with the immediate
supervisor was cited as the primary support. Less than 40% of the teacher
leaders receive release time to fulfill their responsibilities. This means that those
teachers assume the additional responsibilities on top of their regular teaching
load. The need for more time to fulfill responsibilities came out repeatedly in the
teacher leader respondents’ comments. Ongoing coaching support is provided
minimally. Overall, the administrator respondents reported providing more pervasive
district support than the teacher leader respondents experienced in their settings.
70
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
This study revealed that more building-level support is needed for teacher leaders to
effectively complete their job responsibilities. Barth (2001) stressed that the principal
assumes a critical role in supporting a teacher leader’s effectiveness. York-Barr and Duke
(2004) concurred and concluded that the effectiveness of teacher leaders was integrally
tied to school culture. It is evident that leadership preparation programs need to place
more attention on the value of teacher leadership and ways to provide building-level
support.
In response, we reexamined our preparation of school administrators. We now place
more focus on helping aspiring building leaders understand how they can build leadership capacity through school cultures that support teacher leadership. In addition, our
consortium hosted a Leadership Forum in 2008 to discuss our findings, using the study
as a catalyst to start a dialogue with area school administrators and board members about
how to support teacher leadership in their organizations. Consortium partners were
actively involved in planning and facilitating this forum. One action step that was taken
at the forum was to create a Teacher Leadership Steering Committee that was charged
with developing and implementing various outreach efforts directed to area districts and
professional organizations.
Career Aspirations of Teacher Leaders
The majority of teacher leader respondents reported satisfaction with current roles
and many of them want to continue as teacher leaders. This sentiment was amplified by
the passionate comments made by many of the teacher leader respondents. Nonetheless,
twenty-five percent of the teacher leader respondents are interested in a future
administrative role. Of interest, the younger, less experienced teacher leaders expressed
stronger career aspirations for future administrative roles than did the older, more
experienced teacher leaders. Private school teacher leaders expressed less interest in
administration than public school teachers.
To help support career aspirations of teacher leaders, our consortium spearheaded
the development of a Teacher Leader advanced certificate program, viewing it as an
important complement to a college’s leadership preparation program for administrators.
We are attempting to sustain a network of teachers who completed the program,
providing leadership opportunities and recognition outside of their districts. We took this
step knowing that networks have offered an important source of support for teacher
leaders (Berry, Norton, & Byrd, 2007). As previously mentioned, the Teacher Leadership
Steering Committee was formed in spring 2008 to promote teacher leadership in the
region. One Teacher Leader program completer co-chairs the Steering Committee, and
various other program completers participate in the committee and have been involved in
making presentations to administrator organizations. Our consortium is intent on
sustaining our teacher leader network to provide support and leadership opportunities as
they emerge.
Summary
This study is relevant to leadership preparation programs that have partnership
relationships with PreK-12 school districts. There is an opportunity for colleges and
universities to support and cultivate the growing importance of teacher leadership in
education by beginning a dialogue about teacher leadership with partner districts.
Dialogue may help districts more clearly define teacher leadership, focus on how
teachers’ talents are identified, and how teacher leaders’ roles and responsibilities are
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
71
defined and supported. As previously cited by Frost and Durrant (2003), higher
education can play an important role as a critical friend and outside partner in the
development of leaders within the schools. In this role, sustained attention could be
directed to creating a model that supports inquiry-based work, discourse, and strategic
planning that facilitate the cultural shifts needed to support leadership capacity in our
schools. This has been accomplished through the development of sustained partnerships
between leadership preparation program institutions and school districts as represented
by the consortium that spearheaded this study.
We learned that our regional snapshot of teacher leadership mirrors the teacher
leadership literature. How teacher leaders are employed and supported are contingent on
context, culture, and research-based best practice. Our sample represents a combination
of first- and second-wave (Silva, Gilbert, & Nolan, 2000) teacher leadership, with
priorities directed toward efficient coordination and instructional leadership. To improve
the support for the next level of teacher leader influence in school improvement decision
making, a more systemic approach needs to be taken that involves multiple constituents
in redefining leadership (Donaldson, 2006; Lambert, 2003). Emerging research
(Reeves, 2008; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006) highlights the potential for this third wave
(Silva, Gilbert, & Nolan, 2000) by promoting specific strategies that include having
teacher leaders engage in action research and work in organizational frameworks that
focus on impacting student achievement through collaborative problem solving.
Considering our regional survey findings, we hope they will provoke questions that
will open up dialogue, followed by changes in practices that will better support teacher
leadership. Some of the questions that have been addressed by the study include: How
can our program coordinate leadership development with teacher preparation? Should
the state certification authorities create a separate certification area for teacher leaders?
Should districts and collective bargaining units determine separate compensation
schedules for teacher leaders? How can professional development offered by outside
providers be coordinated more effectively to target the needs of area teacher leaders?
These questions deserve further attention and research.
Recommendations for Future Research
Considering our findings and the related literature we previously discussed, there is
important future research that needs to be initiated. An important starting point is at the
building level with the school principal. Murphy (2005) called for further research on the
critical role played by the school principal in ensuring the viability of teacher leadership.
Two additional areas for future research are particularly needed. First, successful
models for educating teacher leaders must be studied to identify the skills and knowledge
that should anchor professional development experiences (Murphy, 2005). Second, as
school administrators strive to involve teacher leaders in substantive decisions related to
school improvement issues, research needs to document their impact. The data presented
in this paper just tapped into perceptions of effectiveness. Clearly, that is not sufficient.
“The ultimate measure of the contributions of teacher leaders...is the impact of teacher
leaders on student academic performance” (Wynne, 2001, p. 1). Toward that end, teacher
leader effectiveness needs to be studied and described within contexts of support.
72
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
References
Ackerman, R., & MacKenzie, S. V. (2006). Uncovering teacher leadership.
Educational Leadership, 63(8), 66-70. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational- leadership.aspx
Anderson, K. D. (2004). The nature of teacher leadership in schools as reciprocal
influences between teacher leaders and principals.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(1), 97-113. doi:10.1076/
sesi.15.1.97.27489
Barth, R. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 443-449. Retrieved from
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kappan.htm
Beattie, M. (2002). Educational leadership: Modeling, mentoring, making and remaking
a learning community. European Journal of Teacher Education, 25
(2/3), 199-221. doi:10.1080/0261976022000036439
Berry, B., Norton, J., & Byrd, A. (2007). Lessons from networking.
Educational Leadership, 65(1), 48-52. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational- leadership.aspx
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared for the
twenty-first century. Washington, DC: Author.
Crowther, F., Kagan, S. S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher
leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Donaldson, G.A., Jr. (2006). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people,
purpose and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dozier, T. K. (2007). Turning good teachers into great leaders. Educational Leadership,
65(1), 54-58. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership.aspx
Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher leadership: Rationale, strategy and impact.
School Leadership & Management, 23(2), 173-186. doi:10.1080/
1363243032000091940
Gabriel, J. G. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or
possibility? School Leadership and Management, 23, 313–324.
doi:10.1080/1363243032000112801
Harrison, H., & Killion, J. (2007). Ten roles for teacher leaders. Educational Leadership,
65(1), 74-77. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership.aspx
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author.
Institute for Educational Leadership (2008). Teacher leadership in high schools:
How principals encourage it, how teachers practice it. Leadership Matters.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
Johnson, S. M.; & Donaldson, M. L. (2007). Overcoming the obstacles of leadership.
Educational Leadership, 65(1), 8-13. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/
publications/educational-leadership.aspx
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership redefined: An evocative context for teacher leadership.
School Leadership and Management, 23(4), 421-430. doi:10.1080/1363243032000150953
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
73
Lamlech, J. K., & Hertzog, H. (1998, April). Preparing teachers for leadership roles.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mangin, M. (2007). Facilitating elementary principals’ support for instructional
teacher leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 319-357.
doi:10.1177/0013161X07299438
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning
communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Moller, G., & Pankake, A. (2006). Lead with me: A principal’s guide to teacher
leadership. Poughkeepsie, NY: Eye on Education.
Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2007). Teacher leadership in (in)action: Three case studies of
contrasting schools. Educational Management Administration Leadership, 35,
111-133. doi:10.1177/1741143207071387
Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk.
Washington,DC: Government Printing Office.
Reeves, D. (2008). Reframing teacher leadership to improve your school.
Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
(ASCD).
Richardson. L. M. (2003). Helping teachers participate competently in school leadership.
Clearing House, 76(4), 202-205. doi:10.1080/00098650309602003
Silva, D. Y., Gimbert, B., & Nolan, J. (2000). Sliding the doors: Locking and
unlocking possibilities for teacher leadership. Teachers College Record, 102,
779–804. doi:10.1111/0161-4681.00077
Teitel, L. (2001). How professional development schools make a difference:
A review of research. Washington, D.C.: National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education.
Trautman, D. (2005, July). Perceptions of aspiring administrators on the role of
teacher leader. Paper presented at NCPEA Conference, Washington, D.C.
Wynne, J. (2001). Teachers as leaders in education reform. ERIC Digest. (Report No.
EDO-SP-2001-5). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and
Teacher Education. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov (ED462376
York-Barr, J, & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings
from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-316.
doi:10.3102/00346543074003255
74
Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti
The Impact of Professional Development
School Self-Studies at Two Urban
Elementary Partnerships
Author Biographies
Kathleen D. Rockwood, Ed.D., is Associate Professor and Department Chair of
Educational Leadership and Special Subjects at Manhattanville College in
Purchase, New York. Her current research interests include: teacher leadership,
professional development schools and K-18 partnerships, the leader’s role in
community outreach, and building leadership capacity within organizations.
E-mail: [email protected]
Alexandria Lawrence Ross
Nancy Dubetz
Cecilia M. Espinosa
Scott Wolfson
Lehman College, City University of New York
Damaris Ramirez-Bello
Debra J. Thomas, Ph.D., is the Executive Director and founding member of the
Rockland Teachers’ Center Institute. She serves on the executive board of the
Association of Teacher Educators (ATE) and its New York State affiliate
(NYSATE). She is also co-chair of the New York State Teacher Center Higher
Education Committee. The focus of her research has been teacher leadership and
performance evaluation, P-20 public/private partnerships, and community
schools. E-mail: [email protected]
Ernest J. Piermarini, Ed.D., is Associate Professor of Education at St. Thomas
Aquinas College in Sparkhill, New York. During this regional study he was the
Director of the Purchase Teacher Center. His research interests include: teacher
leadership, instructional strategies, professional development, and the integration
of 21st century skills into curriculum and instruction. E-mail: [email protected]
Ronald D. Valenti, Ph.D., is Director of College and District Partnerships at the
College of New Rochelle in Westchester County, New York. He also directs an
Executive Leadership Ed.D. doctoral program sponsored by St. John Fisher
College, Rochester, New York at the College of New Rochelle. With 28 years
experience as a New York State Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Valenti’s research
interests include economic and fiscal policy, leadership development and
organizational governance in the public sector. E-mail: [email protected]
New York City Primary School 304
Pashka Vulaj
New York City Primary School 291
Abstract
In this paper, two urban elementary professional development school (PDS) selfstudies utilizing the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
PDS self-assessment structure are described. The self-study process and findings are
examined. Examples are provided of how findings from self studies can inform the way
that partners proceed in improving student learning, supporting practicing teachers and
preparing new teachers. Recommended strategies for using the PDS self-study to further
develop K-5 partnerships are presented. Insights gained as a result of engaging in the
process are discussed. This type of assessment is important and timely given the increasing
emphasis on partnerships that involve meaningful collaborations between schools and
institutions of higher learning.
***
One of the primary goals of school/university partnerships is to share the responsibility for
improving student learning. Professional development schools (PDSs) are institutions
designed to rethink the traditional structure for teaching and learning to meet this
important goal. This collaboration is an integral part of educational reform efforts that
link schools and universities in preparing teachers and improving student learning.
Investigating the potential of partnerships between schools of higher education and
elementary schools is also timely nationwide. On October 22, 2009 Secretary of Education
Arne Duncan spoke in New York City about the importance of preparing teachers in
P-12 schools to teach in the 21st Century. In his call to action, he exhorted Schools of
Education across the nation to redesign and transform their teacher education programs
by increasing its focus on prospective teachers’ clinical experiences. In this article, we
illustrate the potential of self-study to improve K-16 partnerships by describing how
two PDSs used the PDS self-study process to develop a deep understanding of ways
to improve teaching and learning in schools and at the university.
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 5, Number 1
Fall / Winter 2010
75
76
Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj
As the research base on PDS partnerships grows, so does the evidence that PDSs
improve the quality of teaching in ways that ultimately improve student learning
(Abdal-Haqq, 1998; Castle, Fox, O’Hanlan, & Souder 2006; Chance, 2000; Harris &
van Tassell, 2005; Houston, Hollis, Clay, Ligons, & Roff, 1999; Klinger, Ahwee, van
Garderen, & Hernandez, 2004; Leonard, Lovelace-Taylor, Sanford-DeShields, &
Spearman, 2004; Levine, 1997; Teitel, 2001). Participation in PDS partnerships
influences the practices of both university-based and school-based educators (Dangel,
Dooley, Swars, Truscott, Smith, & Williams, 2009).
Assessing PDSs through Self-Study
The PDS literature points to the need to determine how partnership work affects
participating individuals and institutions (Breault & Breault, 2003; NCATE, 2001;
Norman, 2005; Teitel, 2001). This need can be addressed through a self-study process
such as that developed by The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE).
Self-study, as a form of assessment, relies on the professional judgment of both
school-based and university-based partners. “The assessment process focuses attention
on ‘what matters most’ to all teaching and learning organizations, that is, effective
teaching and learning of its participants” (NCATE, 2001, p. v). Presenting high-quality,
reliable evidence based on our assessment of what we know is important provides a
deeper understanding of the accomplishments and outcomes of schooling than does
assessment based solely on standardized test scores. The PDS self-study process is
intended to ensure quality and accountability in schools and universities working in
partnership and to provide results and substantive conclusions about how the partnership
currently meets standards for effective collaboration. In our context, the Lehman PDS
partnerships are using the PDS standards developed by NCATE to guide our assessment
process.
This paper describes two PDS self studies that followed the NCATE process to
examine the work of each partnership over several years. The investigation of the impact
of PDS work presented in this article offers insights into the process of assessing school/
university partnerships for both NCATE-accredited institutions and institutions that are
accredited by other agencies and are committed to collaboration between schools/
colleges of education and PreK-12 schools. In the following pages, we provide examples
of how findings from self-studies inform the ways partners proceed in improving student
learning, supporting practicing teachers, and preparing new teachers. We also examine
how self-study affects the individuals from schools and universities who participate in
the self-study process. While the findings are intimately connected to the institutional
contexts in which the self-studies took place, the investigation into our process of
self-study will help other PDSs develop mechanisms to ensure that evaluation through
self-assessment is a beginning place from which to build leadership capacity. It also
supports the argument that meaningful partnership work, like participating actively in a
self-study process, has a positive impact on teaching both in schools and the university.
Following a brief description of the context of our PDS work, we outline the collaborative
processes and stages of our PDS self-studies. We highlight conclusions reached and recommendations made as a result of the investigation. We then provide information regarding how
individuals in different roles in the school and university not only contributed to the process,
but changed practice based on their involvement in and the findings of the self-studies
Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj
77
Context of the PDS Work
Three institutions from an urban PDS network were involved in developing and
implementing the self-study process. In the fall of 1999, the Division of Education at
Lehman embarked upon the creation of Professional Development School (PDS)
partnerships with schools in the Bronx. To offer PDS partnerships a more central role in
institutional reform, faculty in the Division designed a year-long selection process that
would result in formal school/university partnerships. Each partnership would be
governed by a three-year, renewable charter agreement.1 In the spring of 2000, Public
School (PS) 304 and PS 291 were selected to become elementary PDS sites, and our
collaboration began immediately in June 2000.
From the beginning of the partnership, the participants have been engaging in
developing and implementing joint PDS goals. They have been documenting the
relationship between their collaborative work and the learning community within the
PDSs. Our collaborative approach includes: (1) the annual development and ongoing
revision of PDS goals through a mutually designed structure for reflecting on work
undertaken in each partnership each year, and (2) a formal self-study evaluation every
third year using the NCATE PDS Standards and Elements (NCATE, 2001). This article
reports on the results of the second self-study process conducted since the inception of
the PDS network.
Participating Institutions
Lehman College is a public college in the City University of New York system and is
located in the Bronx. The two elementary schools partner with the Department of Early
Childhood and Childhood Education (ECCE). The department offers both undergraduate
and graduate early childhood and childhood programs both with monolingual and
bilingual programs. PS 291 and PS 304 are urban public elementary schools located in
the Bronx. PS 291 houses kindergarten through fourth grade, and PS 304 contains
prekindergarten through fifth grade.
Each PDS has a school-based liaison and a university-based liaison. Two of the
full-time ECCE faculty are designated as PDS liaisons (one assigned to each school)
who receive reassigned time to spend a minimum of one day a week at a PDS site. An
assistant principal at PS 304 and PS 291 serve as school-based liaisons. The liaisons are
responsible for maintaining the day-to-day operation of the partnership and participating
in research, documentation, and assessment of the PDSs. The school and university
liaisons also serve on a PDS Executive Council. This Council, which meets monthly, is
responsible for the governance of the PDSs, and includes the liaisons from all PDSs as
well as key individuals in the administration of the Division of Education.
Preparation for a PDS Self-Study
The heart of the self-study is the work of the PDS partnership. Creating a shared
understanding of the scope and impact of that work is an essential part of the assessment
process. What makes a study of the work of the PDS different from other approaches to
evaluation is that it assesses work across the functions of a PDS in an integrated way.
1 For a more detailed discussion of the selection process, see Dubetz, Lawrence and
Gningue (2002) and Lawrence and Dubetz (2001).
78
Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj
It is undertaken collaboratively involving representative members of the partnership, and
it incorporates and is driven by a strong commitment to inquiry.
Drawing upon a recommendation by NCATE to begin the self-study process by
determining the purpose of the self-study in relation to the PDS Standards and Elements
(NCATE, 2001), members of the PDS Executive Council met to discuss what is at the
heart of our PDS work. Based on this discussion, the Council identified two major
inquiry strands for both PDSs that cut across the four functions of a PDS: preparing
teachers, improving the instruction of school- and university-based faculty, engaging in
collaborative inquiry, and improving student learning. While self-studies were
undertaken separately at each school, the Council felt it was important that both PDSs
examine the same broad questions that are central to and overarching of all our work
together as school and university partners. We chose to examine two major foci of work
in our PDSs that involve the student teaching experience and professional development
of school- and university-based educators. The two inquiry strands investigated in both
PDS self-studies were
1. The Student Teaching Experience: How do teacher candidates feel after their
student teaching experiences at the PDS? How prepared are they to take over a
classroom? Have our candidates improved or had an impact on student learning
through student teaching and/or fieldwork?
2. Professional Development: How has the Lehman PDS partnership via professional
development (e.g., PDS conferences, opportunities for teachers to take courses at
Lehman, opportunities to teach courses at Lehman, support from PDS liaisons,
on-site fieldwork for college faculty, other professional development opportunities)
influenced how teachers support and promote student learning?
Once the questions were decided, the school and college PDS liaisons began
establishing PDS self-study steering committees at each school. The compositions of the
steering committees at each school were similar but not identical. Each school created a
steering committee that was representative of all of the active participants in the partnership, which included school- and university-based liaisons, college faculty, cooperating
teachers, teacher candidates, union representatives, and student teaching supervisors.
Developing Instruments to Gather Evidence
The first meeting of the self-study steering committees involved looking at the two
questions to be examined and to determine how to gather evidence around the two
themes. In addition the schools created sub-questions specific to their work and settings
to help them more specifically focus on the work they were trying to document.
Each school decided independently on how to collect the data and on who was to
collect the data. At both schools surveys were conducted with school faculty, college
faculty, and former student teachers. In addition, supervisors were surveyed at PS 291.
The surveys included both scaled and open-ended questions. The surveys were similar
for each school but different to allow for specific questions regarding the particular work
of each partnership to be examined. At PS 291 the surveys were all administered
electronically. At PS 304 the surveys were administered both through paper and e-mail.
Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj
79
It was decided at PS 304 to also conduct a focus group with current and former
cooperating teachers at the school. The focus group questions were agreed upon by the
steering committee and the group was led by a teacher on the steering committee.
Analyzing Data in a PDS Self-Study
The data were analyzed by the members of the steering committees. Each school
took a somewhat different approach during a preliminary review of data. At PS 304, the
steering committee met as a whole and reviewed summaries of all of the surveys.
Together they analyzed responses to open ended questions and notes from the focus
groups. At PS 291, the steering committee broke into two subcommittees for the first
review of data. The subcommittee that focused on the questions about professional
development reviewed summaries of results of school and faculty surveys, and the
subcommittee that focused on the questions about student teaching reviewed summaries
of the data from the surveys of cooperating teachers, supervisors, and graduates.
Once the preliminary data analysis was completed, the steering committees at each
of the schools met to discuss the findings of the data collected in light of the elements for
each of the NCATE 5 PDS standards: Learning Community; Accountability and Quality
Assurance; Collaboration; Diversity and Equity; Structures, Resources and Roles1 .
Using the data, the committees assessed to what degree the PDS work was addressing
the standard and developed a tentative statement of standing for each standard.
A statement of standing draws, in a holistic way, on the evidence and conclusions
presented. Each steering committee then had to determine whether the PDS was
beginning to meet the standard, developing toward meeting it, at standard, or was
exceeding the standard (referred to as leading) by leading to systemic change. At PS 304,
this process involved comparing the conclusions with the previous self-study and looking
again at the evidence as a whole to determine a developmental level for the PDS for each
standard and for the partnership as a whole2 . Below is an example of a statement of
standing for Standard I: Learning Community from PS 304.
Standard I: Learning Community — Developing Level
PDS members (school staff, college faculty, and students) continue to collaborate as
a learning community. The PDS environment provides support for integrated
learning experiences that focus on adult and children’s learning but these experiences
occur unevenly. The school faculty participate in candidates’ preparation by
serving as cooperating teachers. Inquiry and action research are being used in some
classrooms, but there is not always a clear conception of the connections among the
members of the PDS community. Some university faculty visit classrooms to
observe and collect data. PDS partners can articulate the partnership’s vision and
beliefs about learning. The PDS partnership has begun to realize its potential for
changing school and university practice.
2. For a detailed description o f each standard , see the Handbook for the Assessment of
Professional Development Schools published by NCATE (2001).
3. The chart of the developmental guidelines published by NCATE can be found at http://
www.ncate.org/documents/pds/stand_1_dev_guide.pdf).
80
Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj
While formulating statements of standing using the PDS standards, recommendations were made for each standard and were based on conclusions made during the
assessment. The recommendations specifically focus on work that the partnership sees as
necessary to move to the next stage on the developmental guidelines and refer to specific
aspects of identified PDS work. To illustrate, the following recommendation was created
for Standard I: Learning Community as a result of this assessment process at PS 304.
Standard I: Learning Community — Developing Level
Plans will be formulated to improve the annual PDS conference so as to enhance the
PDS connections throughout the partnership. There are plans to enhance the
field experience for student teachers as well as plans to involve more school and
college faculty possibly through better planned orientations for both student teachers
and cooperating teachers; study groups; and/or grants around action research in the
classrooms. It is recommended that a list be generated from both college and school
faculty on needs as well as expertise that can be shared. Plans are in place to hold a
college course for credit on site at PS 304 next fall.
After the final statements of standing, conclusions, recommendations and developmental
levels were determined, a summary of the findings and recommendations were then
shared with the school and college faculty for revisions and comment. The plan that had
been created to put some of the recommendations into place was highlighted at these
meetings. There was also a solicitation of thoughts and ideas for how to plan for future
implementations of practices to improve the student and adult learning in the partnership.
The self-study findings and recommendations are what serve as the evidence for the
basis for making changes in practice, allowing representatives of the participating
institutions to decide together how to move forward.
Impact of the PDS Self-Study Process
PDS self-studies have both institutional and personal consequences. In this section,
we offer examples of the impact of the PDS self-study process. Our discussion is
organized around the functions of PDS work.
Preparing Effective Teachers
The self-study at PS 291 offered important insights into how partners were serving as a
learning community (PDS Standard I) and collaborating (PDS Standard 3) to prepare new
professionals for teaching. The results of surveys from those most close to this work, i.e.,
cooperating teachers, college supervisors and student teachers, showed that student teachers
were having a positive impact on student learning. The types of impact included: (a) allowing
for more one-on-one or small group interactions that facilitated a child’s learning of challenging concepts; (b) developing significant relationships with particular children that helped build
children’s self esteem; and (c) some evidence that student teachers offered music, art, and
academic strategies that the teacher might not otherwise be using. The self-study also revealed
that there were areas in teacher preparation that the partners needed to collaboratively address
more effectively. For example, while most program graduates who had done student teaching
at the PDS reported they were prepared to teach English Language Learners (ELLs), cooperating teachers believed candidates were not adequately prepared by the end of student teaching.
The lack of preparation in working with ELLs was also a concern of college preservice faculty.
Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj
81
After the self-study, the PDS increased its involvement in organizing site based fieldwork
embedded in methods courses where teacher candidates worked with small groups of
ELLs, observing instruction in classrooms of effective teachers of ELLs, and meeting
with school-based ESL professionals. In addition, the student teaching experience for the
candidates at PS 291 was modified to allow them to opt for a four week placement in a
classroom with a large number of ELLs to develop differentiated instructional strategies
if they are not already student teaching in a classroom with a large number of ELLs.
Finally, the PS 291 self-study demonstrated that partners need to collaborate even
more to strengthen the student teaching experience by: (a) supporting continuity of
people working with student teachers, e.g., having the same supervisors work with the
same cooperating teachers from semester to semester; (b) structuring opportunities for
cooperating teachers and supervisors to meet and talk over time; and (c) providing better
mentoring for cooperating teachers on how to be effective mentors. The recommendations have led to the creation of several new structures including: (a) increasing
communication/meetings between the college liaisons and cooperating teachers on a
regular basis; (b) establishing a regular supervisor, who also attends meetings at the
school with the liaisons and student teachers; and (c) establishing a support network of
new cooperating teachers with experienced cooperating teachers.
Collaborative Inquiry into Student Learning
After reviewing the survey and focus group data from PS 304, it became
apparent that teachers needed assistance using test data to drive instruction. As part of the
discussion of the self-study results it was decided that an on-site course (at PS 304)
would be offered where teachers would analyze test data and receive Lehman graduate
credit using their tuition waivers received from hosting student teachers. The steering
committee designed an educational research course which analyzed ELA (English
Language Arts) test data and was taught by the Literacy Coach of PS 304. During the
course, the teachers found that grade three through five students were getting similar
questions wrong on the ELA and it was due to how questions were worded and
deficiencies in vocabulary. They also found there was a drop in scores from grade 4 to
grade 5 due to grammar. This was a huge discovery for the teachers and one they felt
could be corrected in the classrooms easily. An advantage of the self-study was that it
helped the school to bring forward the need to explore ways to teach formal standard
written grammar mechanics in a more systematic manner and rethink test preparation
through rewording questions and improving vocabulary. The school has since
implemented a school-wide grammar curriculum and changed the phrasing used during
everyday instruction and in test practice to address the deficiencies. As a result of this
college course onsite at PS 304, which was conceived from the results of the self-study
and created by the PDS partnership, school wide curriculum changes were implemented.
The teachers note a distinct improvement in students’ use of written grammatical
mechanics, and test scores for these students have risen. Using data to improve student
learning is a current nation wide concern. However, teachers do not always know how to
interpret or use data correctly. The results of the self-study created an opportunity for
teachers to learn how to look at student data to set goals and drive instruction.
Professional Development of School and College Faculty
A restructuring of the Annual PDS Conference was established as a result of the
self-studies. The PDS studies highlighted the need for more meaningful opportunities for
82
Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj
college and school faculty to collaboratively explore problems in teaching and learning
that were of interest to both groups. Following the self-studies, the format for the Annual
PDS Conference, where all members of all PDS institutions are invited to participate in
professional development, was restructured as a series of roundtables, where college and
school faculty join together to explore specific topics around a larger theme, e.g.,
assessing student learning, in a format that promotes meaningful discussion in a small
group setting.
Participation on a Self-Study Steering Committee
At the personal level, the self-study process has influenced the work of the
individuals who participated in the process. In this section, we highlight its impact on a
few members of the self-study steering committees to illustrate the kinds of impact that
participation in the process can have.
At the conclusion of the self-studies, steering committee members reflected on how
their practice was informed by participation in the study, if at all. We found patterns in
our experiences that are consistent with what others have reported about participation in
PDS work (Harris, & van Tassell, 2005; Klinger, Ahwee, van Garderen, & Hernandez,
2004; Leonard, Lovelace-Taylor, Sanford-DeShields, & Spearman, 2004; Rice, 2002;
Scheetz, Waters, Smeaton, & Lare , 2005; Siebert, 2005; Snow-Gerono, 2005; Teitel,
2001). Specifically three themes emerged regarding our participation: (1) Self-study
work strengthened the commitment to partnership work; (2) The work led to changes in
practice for preservice coursework and in elementary classrooms; and (3) The self-study
work lead to professional growth. What follows are the stories of six of the steering
committee members and insights on our participation on the process and changes in
practice that led to improvement of instruction at both the elementary and college level.
Two of the members are based in the schools. Damaris Ramirez-Bello is a classroom
teacher at PS 304 and has served as a cooperating teacher. She is a graduate of the
Lehman College Graduate Childhood Education Program. She has hosted many student
teachers as a cooperating teacher and led the self-study focus group with cooperating
teachers at PS 304. Patty Vulaj, who is also a graduate of a Lehman College Graduate
program, is an Assistant Principal at PS 291 and is the school-based PDS liaison.
Four of the members are based at the college and supervise student teachers at the
PDS sites as part of their duties. Scott Wolfson is an adjunct instructor of education at
Lehman College. Wolfson supervises student teachers, teaches math methods for both
childhood and early childhood education in both graduate and undergraduate programs,
and coordinated the graduate program for New York City Teaching Fellows and for
Teach for America (TFA). Cecilia M. Espinosa is an assistant professor and supervises
student teachers. During her first two years at Lehman College, she also served as the
college PDS Liaison for PS 291. A large portion of her undergraduate literacy course has
been taught at PS 291.
Nancy Dubetz and Alexandria Lawrence Ross are associate professors at Lehman
and each is a college PDS liaison. In addition, both have experience as supervisors in the
PDSs where they work. They served as chairs on their self-study steering committees.
Commitment to Partnership Work
As Rice (2002) finds in her meta-ethnography on PDSs, the desire for collaboration
on both the part of the college and school must be strong for the PDS to thrive. As well,
Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj
83
Snow-Gerono (2005) reports on the need for community in a PDS. Members of our selfstudy steering committees witnessed the need for continued collaboration but also as
members of the integrated steering committee felt the deep commitment to collaboration
that already exists in each partnership.
In her reflection, Patty Vulaj writes about how the commitment to partnership work
helps to refocus the broad goals of the school.
The self-study work done by the committee helps us self reflect as a community on
the work we are doing. This self reflection then helps us focus/re-focus our desired
outcomes — our outcomes always being centered around how we can better support
our students. The coming together as a community helps us see things from different
perspectives. Through these multiple lenses we then are able to set goals and
expectations for ourselves. This is key since we all have different demands and
expectations on a day to day basis.
Scott writes,
As a member of the 291 PDS committee, I was asked for my input within the selfstudy. I was asked to look through the lens of my experience as a supervisor of
student teachers at each of the standards, and through my experience, evaluate where
we fit within the developmental guidelines. Importantly, I felt the process of the selfstudy was very inclusive. Each member of the team was given a rubric (develop
mental guidelines). As a team we read though each of the elements for all of the
standards. Each of us was encouraged to state our opinions about where we felt the
team fell within each of the elements of the standards. I feel this is important as this
is not always the case when you are asked to participate on a committee. This
committee did not feel hierarchical, each member’s thoughts and suggestions had
equal weight.
Alexandria’s experience on the steering committee and in the self-study process
revealed to her the need to more clearly communicate to the partnership about the PDS
work and her own role as a liaison. Despite her physical presence at the school each
week, there still seemed to be confusion on the part of the school faculty as to what the
role of the liaison is. As well, there were many misconceptions around the selection and
placement of cooperating teachers and student teachers which was the cause of some
resentment. It quickly became clear that she had to adjust her role to include providing
more upfront information about PDS related activities in the school. As a result, she has
spoken at faculty meetings and sought out individuals who are not cooperating teachers
to participate in the PDS in alternate ways, i.e. participating in an onsite course, teaching
courses at the college as an adjunct, and presenting at conferences. In this way the circle
of those involved in PDS work will widen and the scope and commitment to the partnership will increase.
Cecilia also felt that the self-study process was thorough, systematic and generative.
This experience gave Cecilia a new lens to think about when planning her literacy
undergraduate fall course at PS 291. She gained new insights into the importance of
providing the Lehman students with opportunities to observe teachers working with
second language learners at PS 291. In addition, because the results of the surveys
revealed a need for Lehman students to develop deeper understandings about assessments utilized in schools, she planned to invite the Literacy Coach to talk with her
students about the different ways in which teachers assess children’s reading development at PS 291. The participation in the self-study provided further evidence for Cecilia
84
Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj
with regards to the need to offer her students more experiences to work weekly, over a
span of time, with one student or a small group of students who are also learning English
as a second language at PS 291. These deeper commitments became evident in large part
because of her participation in the self-study.
Changes in Practice
Research studies on PDSs, such as Scheetz, Waters, Smeaton, and Lare, (2005) and
Leonard, Lovelace-Taylor, Sanford-DeShields, and Spearman (2004), have made
compelling arguments on how participation in a PDS can change and improve the
education process. Our data confirms and extends the knowledge base with testimonies
to how practice was changed in both the school and college.
Changes in Preservice Coursework. Damaris saw change in the preservice
coursework take place immediately at PS 304. Based on our (self-study steering
committee) findings from the teacher surveys, the cooperating teacher focus group, and
the student teacher surveys, the steering committee met to come up with ways to
improve the student teaching experience for both parties. For example, we came up with
the idea of holding orientations for both cooperating teachers and student teachers before
they begin so expectations can be communicated clearly and to both parties at once.
This approach helps cut down on confusion and misconceptions.
Scott started to make changes in his preservice coursework based on the data
analysis. Data indicated one of the concerns for our student teachers and their
cooperating teachers was that the student teachers are often unfamiliar with some of the
assessments and curriculum in use in the schools. Many of our students will end up both
student teaching and teaching in New York City schools. As college instructors, we need
to make these assessments explicit in our courses. For example, in mathematics
New York City schools use Everyday Math. In his math methods course, Scott now
incorporates some of the work from Everyday Math so students will have some
familiarity. As a program coordinator, he works with adjunct faculty to incorporate this
content into their syllabi.
Alexandria gained insight into some areas of deficiency in the College Graduate
Childhood Education program as a result of participating in the steering committee.
“Through the review of student teacher surveys we discovered that the student teachers,
overall, rated the experience very highly. However, there were clearly three areas that
received consistently low rankings: working with children with special needs,
understanding formal assessments, and knowledge of state standards. The above three
areas also received low ratings in program evaluations conducted by the College, and PS
304 feels they are school-wide weaknesses.” It was her responsibility as a liaison to bring
this information to the college faculty to begin thinking of ways both at the program and
student teaching and practicing teacher levels to improve these areas.
From her participation in this self-study, it became even clearer to Cecilia that to be truly
prepared, Lehman students need to be in schools in the company of a variety of Lehman
faculty. An assortment of methods courses needs to continue to be offered at the school
campus, preferably during the school day, but if not, then after school. As professors, we need
to discuss the types of practical experiences the students receive in each course we
offer. Our purpose of these conversations should be to ensure that we offer the
Lehman students both continuity of experience, while we also provide new engagements.
Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj
85
Changes in Elementary Classrooms. Damaris participated in the onsite
educational research course that grew out of the self-study at PS 304 in the collaborative
inquiry of the self-study process. It impacted her teaching directly. As part of the analysis
of the data from the English Language Arts (ELA) tests, it was found that although
grades three, four, and five spend a good deal of time on character study, about half the
students in each third-grade class chose the wrong answer on character questions on
the multiple-choice portion of the 2008 ELA. After looking at the specific questions,
Damaris saw that students were able to describe characters and how they changed
throughout the story but were unable to draw conclusions about characters or describe
their mood or motivations. She now spends less time on character traits in her classroom
and more time on the areas where children had difficulty. As a result of the test analysis,
she also began to word things differently in her teaching. For example, rather than asking
students what the main idea of a passage is, she now says “what is this passage mostly
about.” The test scores of these children improved the following year.
While reviewing the data during the PDS self-study process, Cecilia was reminded
that both institutions have a lot to offer one another and thought about how that can
provide ways to change practice in the future. The school, for example, offers
Lehman students daily insights into what it means to teach in this era of accountability.
The school can also offer insights into what it means to carve out spaces for a child
to follow his/her interests and passions. Lehman students bring to the classroom their
unique experiences growing up in an urban setting. The children at the schools share
this experience with them. Cecilia commented,
The Lehman students also bring fresh ideas about ways to teach the different content
areas. They can try these new methodologies in the classroom. Lehman professors
can offer support through their areas of expertise. They can, for instance, support a
teacher in figuring out how to create a more democratic classroom community. They
can offer the school their understandings of developing curriculum that addresses the
21st Century Literacies. This teamwork can certainly lead to fascinating collaborative
inquiry projects, where classroom teachers and college professors ask questions,
engage in research, analyze their findings, present at professional conferences and
publish their research stories for a larger audience. They can engage in studying a
child over time. In other words, follow a child or a group of children over several
years by developing child studies.
Patty sees the changes on a broad scale and comments,
Our self-study work always leads us to be honest with ourselves in looking at our s
trengths and weaknesses. Through our honesty and collaboration, we then are able to
make appropriate changes and set new goals for ourselves. It is a learning and
growing experience each and every time we come together to reflect and share our
ideas. The changes we make are ways to better support our students.
Professional Growth
A study in 2005 by Harris and van Tassell finds that 85% of practicing teachers
report learning innovative techniques from PDS participation. Both college and school
faculty grew professionally as a result of working collaboratively on the self-studies in
the PDS partnership.
As an instructor of methods classes, Scott saw how the statement of standing and the
recommendations of the PDS had a strong influence on his own teaching.
I saw and heard first hand that our students need to have more opportunities to learn
86
Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj
about classroom management techniques. As an instructor I have made an effort to
become more explicit about management techniques within my modeling. Helping
newteachers to predict student behaviors within their lesson planning provides them
with practice to assist them before they move into student teaching. As part of their
coursework, students within my class are now required to develop a management
as a plan for part of each lesson. This may include simple management techniques
such as a plan for the distribution of materials within the class or developing a
specific behavior plan for an individual child with particular behavioral needs.
Additionally, I now require that my math methods students incorporate elements of
the Everyday Math Program, the required program of the New York City schools,
into their lessons.
As a liaison, Alexandria has become mindful of how quickly misinformation can
arise if communication is not constant. As a result, she spends time with each of the
cooperating teachers at the school discussing their roles and clarifying the expectations
of the student teacher as well. She also spends time engaging teachers who are not
cooperating teachers to involve them in PDS work in other ways.
Nancy learned about the complexities of the mentoring role of cooperating teachers
and supervisors as a consequence of her participation on the self-study team.
In looking at the data from the surveys with other members of the self-study committee
and later reporting on the results of the self-study to a group of cooperating teachers on a
professional development day, it became clear that the PS 291/Lehman collaboration had
to include more effective mechanisms for supporting teachers in their role as mentors to
student teachers. What has been learned has led to the creation of several new structures
to meet that goal: (1) ensuring that the same supervisor works with the same cooperating
teachers from semester to semester; (2) meeting with cooperating teachers regularly to
discuss expectations; (3) setting up an in-school network between first time cooperating
teachers and experienced cooperating teachers so the that first year teachers know who
they can talk with about student teaching questions in addition to the liaisons; (4) using
feedback from regularly scheduled meetings between the student teacher and the
university-based liaison to provide a written update every third week to all cooperating
teachers regarding the student teaching experience. As Nancy engages in this work, her
interactions with cooperating teachers are more focused and purposeful.
Patty agrees with Nancy’s thoughts on mentoring at PS 291:
Through our self-study work, we have found a need to better support our cooperating teachers. The support of our cooperating teachers in turn will affect the support they
can provide to the student teachers, which in turn will affect the support a student teacher
will be able to provide to the students. Proper and best support to our students is always
our number one goal.
Cecilia’s roles as PDS liaison and student teacher supervisor have allowed her to
gain deep insights and understandings about the complexity of our PDS relationship.
Participating in this self-study confirmed Cecilia’s beliefs that throughout their teacher
preparation Lehman prospective teachers need multiple opportunities to observe teachers
engaging second-language learners in deep and rich content. They need to experience
educational settings where parents’ voices are heard. In particular, they need experiences
in settings where the voices of immigrant parents are also part of the conversation. She
was reminded that the Lehman students also need ample opportunities to engage in
meaningful activities with second-language learners under the guidance of a Lehman
Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj
87
faculty member. In addition, Lehman students need opportunities to experience rich
educational opportunities for children with special needs.
This self-study also strengthened her belief that it matters that as faculty members
from two different institutions we continue to engage in ongoing dialogue. This dialogue
not only helps us understand our realities but helps us enrich and expand possibilities for
all the children at the school and also for our prospective teachers.
Conclusion
Conducting the self-studies was a collaborative effort that aimed to promote selfdevelopment and reflection. The implementation of the follow-up to the studies needs to
be carefully planned so all of the benefits of the study can be reaped. The conclusions
and recommendations of the studies are powerful because they come from within the
partnership. Simultaneously, they are closely tied to a set of nationally recognized
standards, the NCATE PDS Standards (NCATE 2001). The conclusions, recommendations,
and impact of the self-studies also extend the literature base on PDSs. Our work supports
the argument that PDSs improve the education process for students, preservice teachers,
practicing teachers, and university faculty (Castle et al., 2006; Dangel et al., 2009;
Harris & van Tassel, 2005; Leonard et al., 2004; Scheetz, Waters, Smeaton, & Lare,
2005; Siebert; 2005). Our work specifically identifies changes and improvements
in practice.
In addition to growing and developing the partnerships through the self-study, our
investigation revealed how the process had a direct impact on both college and school
curriculum. Individuals on the self-study steering committees also discuss how powerful
changes were made to their own classroom teaching as a result of being involved in the
studies. Without doubt, the experience has enriched their practices as teachers and
educators. The outcomes of these self-studies offer great potential to the participating
institutions in that the action plans created as a result of the recommendations have the
capability of impacting change at both the curricular and institutional level.
References
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Professional development schools: Weighing the evidence.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Breault, R., & Breault D. (2003, April). Warrantability and meaningfulness in
PDS research: A content analysis. Unpublished paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Chicago.
Castle, S., Fox, R., & O’Hanlan-Souder, K. (2006). Do professional development
schools (PDSs) make a difference? A comparative study of PDS and non-PDS
teacher candidates. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 65-80.
Chance, L. (Ed.) (2000). Professional development schools: Combining school
improvement with teacher preparation. Washington, DC: National
Education Association.
Dangel, J. R., Dooley, C. M., Swars, S. L., Truscott, D., Smith, S. Z., & Williams, B.
(2009). Professional development schools: A study of change from the university
perspective. Action in Teacher Education, 30(4), 3-17.
Dubetz, N. E., Lawrence, A., & Gningue, S. (2002). Formalizing a process for
identifying urban PDS partnerships. Issues in Teacher Education, 11(2), 17-30.
Harris, M., & van Tassell, F. (2005). The professional development school as a learning
organization. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(2), 179-194.
88
Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj
Houston, W. R., Hollis, L. Y., Clay, D., Ligons, C. M., & Roff, L. (1999). Effects of
collaboration on urban teacher education programs and professional development
schools. In D. M. Byrd & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Research on professional
development schools, teacher education yearbook VII (pp. 6-28). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Klinger, J., Ahwee, S., van Garderen, D., & Hernandez, C. (2004). Closing the gap:
Enhancing student outcomes in an urban professional development school. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 27(3), 292-30.
Lawrence, A. & Dubetz, N. (2001). An urban collaboration: Improving student learning
through a professional development network. Action in Teacher Education 22
(4), 1-14.
Leonard, J., Lovelace-Taylor, K., Sanford-DeShields, J., & Spearman, P. (2004).
Professional development schools revisited: Reform, authentic partnerships, and new
visions. Urban Education, 39(5), 561-583
Levine, M. (1997). Can professional development schools help us achieve what
matters most? Action in Teacher Education, 19(2), 63-73.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2001). Handbook for the
assessment of professional development schools. Washington, DC: Author.
Norman, P. J. (2005). When a PDS isn’t working: Confronting the question of pulling
out. Action in Teacher Education, 27(4), 35-44.
Rice, E. (2002). The collaboration process in professional development schools: Results
of a meta-ethnography, 1990-1998. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 55-67.
Scheetz, J., Waters, F., Smeaton, P. & Lare, D. (2005). Mentoring in a PDS program:
What’s in it for me? Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(1), 33-37.
Siebert, C. (2005). Promoting preservice teachers’ success in classroom management by
leveraging a local union’s resources: A professional development school initiative.
Education, 125(3), 385.
Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2005). Professional development in a culture of inquiry: PDS
teachers identify the benefits of professional learning communities. Teaching and
Teacher Education: An International Journal of research and Studies, 21(3), 241-256.
Teitel, L. (2001). How professional development schools make a difference: A review of
the research. Washington DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj
Author Biographies
Alexandria Lawrence Ross, Ed.D. is Associate Professor in the Department of
Early Childhood and Childhood Education at Lehman College, City University of
New York. Her research interests are in the areas of school-university collaborations
and teacher preparation. Email: [email protected]
Nancy Dubetz, Ed.D., is Associate Professor of Early Childhood and Childhood
Education at Lehman College, City University of New York. Her research focuses
on partnering with educators and schools to develop effective programs for
English learners. Email: [email protected]
Cecilia M. Espinosa, PhD., is Assistant Professor of Education at Lehman College,
City University of New York. Her research interests include: collaborative research
as a way to inform teacher education pedagogy, biliteracy, literacy, and teacher
research. Email: [email protected]
Scott Wolfson, Ed.D., is an adjunct Professor of Education at Lehman College in
the Bronx, New York. His research interests include teacher preparation programs
including alternative certification programs and teacher preparation in mathematics. Email: [email protected]
Damaris Ramirez-Bello earned her Master’s degree at Lehman College, City
University of New York and serves as a cooperating teacher. She is currently an
elementary teacher at PS 304 Early Childhood Lab School, Bronx, New York.
is continuing her studies in Educational Research.
Email: [email protected]
Pashka Vulaj is an assistant principal at Public School 291 in the Bronx, New York.
She has served as a school-based PDS liaison for the Lehman College PDS
network for ten years. She has also served as a cooperating teacher and an adjunct
faculty member at Lehman College. Email: [email protected]
89
Beitzel
Sharing Perspectives
Numbers Can Be Hazardous to Your Health:
Using Boxplots to Monitor Collaborative Assessment Data
91
their own courses in isolation. My second purpose is to describe an easy method of
visually tracking the performance of teacher candidates on key assessments critical for
accreditation—an approach that can stimulate and inform faculty collaboration. In this
regard, I will discuss why it is important not to depend on the most commonly reported
statistics (mean and standard deviation) to measure educational outcomes. And, I will
show how a visual display known as the boxplot is superior to other methods of
monitoring assessment results when accreditation is at stake.
Brian D. Beitzel
The Case for Collaboration
SUNY College at Oneonta
Abstract
Sharing and discussing assessment data with colleagues yields valuable insights
beyond what can be accomplished individually. When reviewing summary quantitative
data, one must be careful to identify those distributions of data that are not normally
distributed. Examples of non-normal distributions include many classroom-based
assessments as well as state-mandated teacher-licensing examination scores for
candidates from any single institution. Boxplots are an efficient way of graphically
representing any distribution of scores, but they are especially helpful for depicting
non-normal distributions. This article explains how to construct and interpret boxplots to
aid the collaborative process of monitoring the outcomes of assessments that are key
indicators of program quality.
***
Imagine you are one of several faculty members who teaches courses in a teachereducation program. Over the years, you have improved your courses through carefully
examining your assessment data from your students’ examinations, papers, field work,
and so forth. Thus, when your academic unit is gathering data for accreditation, it comes
as a surprise that the aggregate data from your colleagues are quite different from your
data for the same course assessments. After some uncomfortable discussions, you find
out that your colleagues have applied different criteria to these assessments than you
have. Your assumptions about what was commonly agreed upon within these
assessments turned out to be mistaken.
Now, imagine another scenario in which you have just made the startling discovery
that a sizable proportion of teacher candidates in your program are achieving licensure
test scores below the required minimum for program accreditation. Because the success
of your candidates on this test is critical for your program to maintain its accreditation,
over the last several years you have been carefully reviewing the average performance of
your students. Their scores have always averaged modestly higher than the passing
score. Thus, the unexpected news that not enough of your students are passing the test
comes as a complete surprise. It turns out that you have been monitoring the wrong
statistics.
The purpose of this article is twofold. I first wish to argue that a collaborative
approach to data collection and analysis—especially as it relates to accreditation—is
superior to the situation in which faculty members arrive at data-based conclusions about
90
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 5, Number 1
Fall / Winter 2010
The specific type of collaboration I wish to advocate most is that of open, honest
discussions of assessment data for the purpose of programmatic improvement (cf.
DuFour, 2004; Good & Jackson, 2008; Kwok, Ma, Vogel, & Zhou, 2001). If done well,
these discussions should lead to program accreditation. The effectiveness of such
discussions depends, in part, upon each faculty member having submitted course-related
assessment data to a centralized database. This does not presume that all faculty
members can view each other’s data, but rather that summaries of data for relevant key
assessments are available to program faculty for analysis. The success of these
discussions depends also, of course, upon the participating faculty members’ willingness
to set aside their territorial concerns and personal investments to examine the data as
objectively as possible and subsequently to agree to curricular modifications when the
data strongly suggest a need for such changes.
Without a centralized database such discussions would be, at best, ill informed.
Ongoing monitoring of aggregated assessment results leads to identification of possible
weaknesses in the program under discussion; vigilant faculty may also notice conceptual
gaps in the curriculum or potential programmatic improvements. In addition, a
bird’s-eye view of program data gives both faculty and administrators some idea of
where the program stands when accreditation reviews are approaching.
Speaking of program accreditation, another compelling argument for submitting
assessment data to a centralized database is that accrediting bodies inspect only the
aggregate data for any given assessment. Consequently, the overall program will be
judged and accreditation awarded on the basis of the aggregate data and not any single
faculty member’s data. Thus, centralizing assessment data is clearly an expedient
plan as a preparatory step to both collaborative faculty discussions and program
accreditation review.
Another advantage of this process alluded to earlier is that faculty members can see
whether their assessment results are in line with the aggregate data for that course.
This provides a rough estimate of whether one is not demanding enough of students or is
holding students to a much higher standard than other faculty members. Such informal
comparisons on the part of a faculty member can stimulate a reflective process that could
result in further collaborative efforts making progress toward common course objectives
and assessments. This increased uniformity across multiple sections of the same course
helps to ensure that students taking any given course have similar experiences and are
evaluated in an equivalent manner, regardless of instructor characteristics.
The Division of Education at my institution, the State University of New York
College at Oneonta, has established a centralized database through which individual
faculty members submit course-related data for aggregate analysis. This database allows
quick summarization of assessment data for each major, facilitating thorough program
92
Beitzel
reviews by our program assessment committee. Such comprehensive reporting—
and the insights gained therein—would not be possible without the collaboration of
our program faculty.
The Case for Careful Data Monitoring
Like hundreds of teacher-education programs nationwide, the education programs at
my institution are accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (hereafter, NCATE). NCATE (2008, Standard 1) defines as “unacceptable”
the situation in which fewer than 80% of program completers pass state-mandated
content examinations. The New York State Department of Education also requires that
teacher-preparation programs maintain at least an 80% pass rate on state licensure
examinations, regardless of the accrediting body. According to the U.S. Department of
Education (2006), 34 states have established minimum pass rates on licensure
examinations for teacher-preparation programs. Therefore, to remain in good standing
with our accrediting organization and the State of New York, at least 80% of the teacher
candidates graduating from our programs must pass the three New York State Teacher
Certification Examinations. Two of these tests (the Liberal Arts and Sciences Test
[LAST] and the Assessment of Teaching Skills-Written [ATS-W]) have posed no great
difficulty for teacher candidates. Statewide, the pass rate was 99% for the LAST and
100% for the ATS-W for individuals who completed a teacher-preparation program in
2007-2008 (New York State Education Department, 2008). The third licensure
examination in our state is the Content Specialty Test (CST), which examines different
material for each academic major. Pass-rate data from 2007-2008 graduates illustrate
that the various CSTs pose greater challenges statewide than either the LAST or the
ATS-W, and several smaller institutions struggle to achieve a pass rate greater than 80%
(New York State Education Department, 2008). Because an institution’s accreditation
status can rise or fall on the basis of the results of these examinations, they have become
high-stakes tests not only for the candidates seeking to be licensed but also for the
institutions that train them.
Beitzel
93
hypothetical institution’s scores for three different CSTs: English, Biology, and
Mathematics. The data are summarized in Table 1. No, it is not a misprint—the means
and standard deviations, rounded to the nearest tenth, are identical.
Table 1
Hypothetical CST Results
Testa
Mean
English
226.9
Biology
226.9
Mathematics
226.9
a
For all tests, N = 100.
Standard Deviation
20.4
20.4
20.4
A program director or an administrator who is looking at the means and standard
deviations of these three examinations might have a false sense of confidence since
students, on average, performed several points above the required passing score of 220
on all three tests. Furthermore, a standard bar graph yields a similar conclusion, even
when error bars are shown (see Figure 1). What is there to worry about?
Why Numbers Can Mislead
Clearly, the most popular pair of statistics to describe any distribution of data is the
mean and the standard deviation. If one knows that the data are normally distributed, the
use of these two metrics is not problematic. However, some datasets—such as licensure
exam scores for any single institution—could very reasonably be expected not to be
normal. Would anyone really expect that after four years of training at a highly selective,
academically rigorous institution, only a very small number of graduates would achieve
that school’s high scores on a licensure test? At my institution, the distribution for most
of our content-based licensure tests, even spanning a three-year period, is decidedly not
normal. These data diverge from normal in different ways—some are bimodal, others
are considerably negatively skewed. Thus, describing these data using only means and
standard deviations can be very misleading.
To illustrate (a) the importance of identifying those distributions of data that are nonnormal and (b) one simple way to detect major departures from normality, I generated
three different distributions of data to represent scores on a teacher-licensure
examination. Because in our state the CST poses the greatest challenge for students in
comparison to the other two state licensure tests, these sample data will represent a
Figure 1. A bar graph of the data in Table 1 (Error bars represent standard deviations.)
Actually, there is plenty to worry about! Because, as claimed earlier, these distributions can often be non-normal, more information is needed before one can arrive at an
accurate understanding of these data. Both Table 1 and Figure 1 give no impression of
any major differences in these three results, yet English and Mathematics are in trouble
with respect to the 80% criterion. Only Biology is meeting the mark: the pass rate for
the English CST is 70%, the pass rate for the Biology CST is 82%, and the pass rate for
94
Beitzel
the Mathematics CST is 62%. If the NCATE team is in town, the pass rates are all that
matters. However, if the next accreditation visit is a few years away, there is still time to
make some programmatic adjustments to strengthen the preparation of candidates before
“Judgment Day.” In the latter case, pass rates do not provide all of the information
necessary to be confident that one’s teacher candidates are sufficiently well prepared for
these examinations. The Biology CST, for example, might be barely making the cutoff
this year (with a considerable number of the students scoring exactly at, or slightly
above, the passing score) and could fail to meet the criterion during the upcoming period
examined by NCATE. A better and more transparent method of monitoring results
is needed.
Boxplots to the Rescue
Knowing that numbers are not always the clearest way to communicate information,
John Tukey (1977, p. 39) introduced the concept of boxplots (which he referred to as
“box-and-whisker plots”) to visually represent a distribution of data. Boxplots depict
five metrics simultaneously, compared with just one or two metrics (mean and standard
deviation) often seen in a bar graph. More important than the number of metrics, though,
is the information they represent (see Lane & Sándor, 2009, for a more elaborate argument on this point).
Figure 2 shows a boxplot of the same data as in Table 1 and Figure 1. The bottom of
each shaded “box” is drawn at the 25th percentile and the top of the box is drawn at the
75th percentile; hence, the box itself represents the middle 50% of the distribution. The
heavy line through the box is drawn at the median (the 50th percentile). The extreme
ends of the “whiskers” represent the lowest value and the highest value observed in the
distribution. (Note: There are other metrics sometimes used to determine the length of
the whiskers; see “Box plot,” 2009, for details.)
Beitzel
95
above the passing score. To meet the NCATE standard, there must be 80% of the
distribution on or above this dotted line (i.e., at least 80% of candidates must score at or
higher than the passing score). Or, stated another way, there must be no more than 20%
of the distribution below the dotted line (i.e., there must be fewer than 20% of candidates
who fail the exam). Because the bottom boundary of each box marks the point below
which 25% of that distribution falls, to meet the NCATE criterion at least 5% of the
distribution must lie between the bottom of the box and the passing score. In other
words, if the shaded box meets or crosses below the dotted line, one can be certain that
the NCATE board will have some very unpleasant words to say. Now we can see
why the English and Mathematics passing rates are not meeting the criterion: more than
25% of the scores on both of those tests are below 220.
The Biology boxplot should bring one to the edge of one’s seat; pins and needles
should begin to be felt. Recall that NCATE’s criterion is for no more than 20% of the
scores to be below the passing score; therefore, the critical factor is exactly where the
20th percentile falls. We know that in the best case scenario for these Biology data, the
20th percentile cannot be much above 220 because the 25th percentile (the bottom of the
box) is not much above 220. Is there at least 5% of the distribution between the bottom
of the box and the dotted line? Unfortunately, a boxplot cannot settle this question; we
must resort to other tools.
With the suspense heavy in the air, one can open Microsoft Excel and use the
PERCENTILE function to determine exactly where the 20th percentile falls. (Brief
technical tutorial: if the scores being examined are in Column A from Row 2 through
Row 101, use the formula “=PERCENTILE(A2:A101, 0.2)” [without the quotes].)
Upon executing this function for the Biology data, we find the result to be 222; therefore,
we can breathe a sigh of relief. Less than 20% of the scores are below 220.
One final note about such close calls: if the 20th percentile calculated by Excel falls
within two or three points in either direction of the passing score, it’s time to use an
airtight method. Sort the test scores from the least to the greatest, and make sure that at
least 80% of the scores are 220 or higher. In my sample dataset, 82 out of 100 scores
were at or above 220, confirming the conclusion that Biology has barely made the grade.
If these data were to be submitted for an institution’s formal NCATE review, all is
well with Biology; the criterion has been met. However, the fact that the 20th percentile
fell so close to the passing score should be a warning that the next round of test results
may not yield the same result. If another batch of results will arrive before NCATE
beckons for data, one should be concerned that the proportion of students who pass this
test might fluctuate to a less fortunate outcome.
That’s Nice, But How Can I Do It?
Figure 2. A boxplot of the data in Table 1
From Figure 2, one can now clearly see that these three distributions are not as
similar as they appeared in Table 1 and Figure 1. The horizontal dotted line at the
passing score of 220 allows us to visually inspect how much of the distribution lies
Unfortunately, Microsoft Excel does not currently have a built-in charting function
for boxplots. Happily, though, there is a free alternative that is not very difficult to
implement: the open-source statistical software package R (R Development Core Team,
2010), with its stunning graphics capabilities. To obtain a copy of this free software, visit
http://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/ (Mac users, go to http://cran.r-project.org/bin/
macosx/) and download the latest version to your desktop, then double-click on it to
install. (It is advisable to accept all the default values offered to you during installation
unless you know what you are doing.)
Before you can create a boxplot in R, you will need to prepare your data. The
easiest way to do this is by organizing it in Microsoft Excel. Use one column in Excel
Beitzel
96
for each assessment that you wish to plot; Row 1 of each column should contain a short
text label that represents the data in that column (e.g., “English CST”). After the data file
is ready, use the Save As command and be sure to specify the file type as “CSV (Comma
delimited) (*.csv).”
Now start the R software, and you will be presented with a text window called a
console. All of your commands creating the boxplot will be typed into this console.
Your first duty is to load your data into R, so begin by typing the following, exactly as
shown here, then press the Enter key.
dataset <- read.csv(file.choose())
A file-picker dialog will appear, prompting you to select the CSV file that you just
exported from Excel. Unless you see an error message in the console, your data are
loaded into R and are awaiting further instructions.
At last, it’s time to issue the command for the boxplot itself. There are many options
to customize your boxplot (I did hint earlier that R has extremely powerful graphics
functions), but let’s stick to basics to begin.
boxplot(dataset, range=0)
After typing in the above command, press the Enter key and the boxplot will appear. You
can right-click on the boxplot and copy it to your clipboard for pasting into another
document if you wish. If you would like to customize the boxplot, any or all of the
following arguments—separated by commas—can be added before the closing parenthesis of the above command to (a) provide a label for the Y axis, (b) shade the boxes gray,
and (c) make the box width a little narrower, respectively.
ylab=“Mean Scaled Score”, col=“gray”, boxwex=.3
It’s easiest to use the up-arrow key on your keyboard to recall the previous command,
then cursor left to the point just before the closing parenthesis, insert a comma, then add
any new arguments desired from the list above, making sure that all arguments in the
entire command are separated by commas.
The final enhancement is drawing a dotted line through the graph at the CST passing
score of 220. This permits easier visual inspection of how close the data fall to the
criterion value. The following command (executed separately from the boxplot command) will draw a red, dotted line across the currently drawn graph at the value 220.
abline(h=220, lty=“dotted”, col=“red”)
To ask R for an approximation of the 20th percentile of the Biology data, first make
sure that you know what column names R is using for your data.
colnames(dataset)
Locate the appropriate column name from your output in the console (here, it’s “Biology”) and issue this command:
quantile(dataset$Biology, probs=.2)
Beitzel
97
Note the dollar sign separating the name of the dataset and the specific column name that
you wish to obtain the percentile for. The percentile will be displayed in the console
after you press the Enter key. Be aware that there are different ways to calculate a
percentile (Frigge, Hoaglin & Iglewicz, 1989), but this will get you close enough to
know whether or not you need to make an appointment with a crisis counselor.
If you’re planning to repeat the same analysis in the future (presumably with an
updated data file), you can save your customized commands in a script file so that you
don’t need to re-type them each time you run the analysis. To create a custom script, go
to the File menu in R and choose “New script”; the R Editor will open and you can type
all of your commands into the editor and then save your script by going back to the File
menu and choosing “Save as....” When you wish to re-run the analysis, simply open R,
go to the File menu and choose “Open script,” browse to your script and click the button
labeled Open; after the script appears, go to the Edit menu and choose “Run all.” Point
to your CSV file when prompted, and voilà! Your customized boxplot will appear
almost before you can blink.
If you wish to learn more about R, you could start by going to the Help menu in R,
then selecting “Manuals (in PDF)” and then “An Introduction to R.” Documentation for
R has been rather limited but is now improving substantially, both on the Web and
through published books. Newcomers to the world of R will find the scope of its
functionality to be astonishingly deep and broad, even if somewhat esoteric. And after
seeing the wide range and depth of R’s features, one must take a moment to
marvel at the price: free!
Several faculty members collaboratively monitoring data from a centralized database
can reach a more illuminating conclusion than is possible for a single faculty member
working alone. This increased collaboration among faculty members teaching the same
course can lead to greater improvements in the course and, consequently, the academic
program. Additionally, if these aggregate data are reviewed periodically using sound
statistical techniques that are capable of highlighting critical dimensions of the data
(such as non-normality), there should be no uncomfortable surprises in store when it
comes time to write that accreditation report.
References
Box plot. (2009). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_plot
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”?
Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
Frigge, M., Hoaglin, D. C., & Iglewicz, B. (1989). Some implementations of the boxplot.
The American Statistician, 43, 50-54.
Good, R., & Jackson, S. H. (2008). Using a collaborative model to analyze the impact of
a data analysis process to improve instruction: A three year study.
Retrieved December 15, 2009, from http://cnx.org/content/m15857/1.1/
Kwok, R. C. W., Ma, J., Vogel, D., & Zhou, D. (2001). Collaborative assessment in
education: An application of a fuzzy GSS. Information & Management, 39, 243-253.
Lane, D. M., & Sándor, A. (2009). Designing better graphs by including distributional
information and integrating words, numbers, and images. Psychological Methods,
14, 239-257.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional standards
for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, DC: Author.
Beitzel
98
New York State Education Department, Office of College and University Evaluation.
(2008). New York State teacher certification examinations (NYSTCE) pass rate data.
Albany, NY: Author.
R Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2006). The
secretary’s fifth annual report on teacher quality: A highly qualified teacher in every
classroom. Washington, DC: Author.
Public Exhibition of Understanding:
A Perspective for Teacher Education
Paul J. Vermette
Niagara University, New York
Karrie A. Jones
Tapestry High School, Buffalo, New York
Jennifer L. Jones
Emmet Belknap Middle School, Lockport, New York
Donna Kester-Phillips
Niagara University, New York
Author Biography
Brian D. Beitzel, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Educational Psychology at
SUNY Oneonta in Oneonta, New York. His research interests include cognitive
and instructional design issues related to learning from video and external
mathematical representations. E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
As teacher colleges look to incorporate authentic assessments of understanding into
their teacher education programs, public exhibitions of understanding have increased in
status and popularity (Davidson, 2009; Rennert-Ariev, 2005). In seeking to provide a
rationale, theoretical basis, and case study of effective public exhibitions of understanding in action, this article looks to Niagara University, a small, private college in
Western New York, and the model it has developed for use with preservice teachers.
By considering the Niagara University model and its theoretical underpinnings, this
article provides an implementation model for using public exhibitions as a means for
incorporating authentic assessments of understanding in teacher education settings.
***
Background
In the mid-1990s, thinking about learning moved decidedly away from a century of
behaviorism towards student demonstration of understanding (Gardner, 1985;
Perkins & Bly the, 1994). Taking the form of portfolio presentations, showcases, journey
sharing opportunities, or simply demonstrations, these public exhibitions went beyond
old-fashioned show and tell, science fairs, and debates to encourage students to
thoughtfully integrate their ideas into public reflection.
In this article we use the term public exhibition to refer to the semi-formal, public
demonstration of knowledge and experiences gained throughout a course or program.
Though there is relatively little research focused specifically on the concept of public
exhibition, the authors of this article assert there are a number of key thinkers who may
have sparked this new understanding of performance for the assessment and extension of
learning. These key thinkers are David Perkins, Howard Gardner, Donald Schon,
Deborah Meier, Gloria Ladson-Billings, David and Roger Johnson, Grant Wiggins,
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 5, Number 1
Fall / Winter 2010
99
100
Vermette, Jones, Jones, and Kester-Phillips
Jay McTighe, and Robert Sternberg. In this article, through the careful analysis of their
research, a rationale for using public exhibition in teacher education programs will
be constructed and the context for consideration of public exhibitions at Niagara
University will be established. First, we will take a brief look at the available
literature base.
Review of Research
One of the most influential educational theorists, who continues to play a tremendous
role in our understanding of cognition is David Perkins. In his widely respected volume,
edited by Wiske (1998), he stated that understanding can be represented by performance.
This means that true understanding is best shown when a student does something with his
or her new, internally created, conceptual knowledge. Best thought of as “intentional
transfer,” his notion demands that students show novel application of new ideas in public
settings (Perkins, 2009, p.119).
Known for his enormous contributions to American education, Howard Gardner’s
multiple intelligence theory (1993, 1999) challenged the notion that knowledge is static
and inert. By contradicting decades of educational thought, Gardner presented a model
of teaching and learning that saw personal interaction, intrapersonal reflection, and
presentations including music, art or dance as highly desirable formats for assessment.
Sparking a revision of how understanding should be demonstrated, Gardner continues to
add validity to the use of personally meaningful visible and audible assessments.
Since the publication of his 1983 article, The Reflective Practitioner:
How Professionals Think in Action, Donald Schon has captivated educators with his
suggestion that deep reflection is the essence of effort by successful professionals. By
challenging educators to reconsider the role technical knowledge played in their
day-to-day practice and focus more on teacher decision making and problem solving,
Schon furthered the notion of progressive growth and continuous improvement. This
notion transferred superbly to a field seeking authentic demonstrations of understanding
for students. Many teachers found public demonstrations of understanding encapsulated
the same essence when applied to student growth over time.
It is also worth noting that Schon’s commitment to reflection is deeply tied to the
growth of journaling (and journal sharing) as educational practice. Though seemingly a
private matter, journaling can also be used as a vehicle for public exhibition of understanding in the classroom. For many students, journaling sets the stage for the learner to
have something personal, thoughtful, and carefully crafted to share with others. This
sharing easily takes form in a public exhibition of understanding or an opportunity to
receive and reflect on meaningful, personalized feedback on their thinking from others.
Deborah Meier brought portfolio usage to the forefront of urban educators’ thinking
when she described the impact of students’ portfolio presentations in her 1995 book,
The Power of Their Ideas. Meier described the tremendous impact public sharing of
students’ personal investigations had on student motivation, self-confidence and quality of
work at Central Park East. By sharing insight into how this public exhibition was
accomplished and its effects on student achievement, Meier provided both the research
and inspiration to other urban educators.
Though seemingly diverse, Gloria Ladson-Billings (2009) and cooperative learning
theorists David and Roger Johnson (1994, 2009) have long called for students to solve
Vermette, Jones, Jones, and Kester-Phillips
101
meaningful problems in collaboration with others, demonstrating their understanding of
key concepts through product creation, not test taking. Their research on culturally
relevant teaching and cooperative learning has transformed schooling from a private,
solitary experience to a noisy, vibrant, public experience. It is by operationalizing their
ideas that teachers are beginning to realize that talking to classmates during instruction
helps student make the leap to talk to other people after instruction.
As a side note, though public exhibitions can be utilized as an elaborate summative
assessment, often the most powerful public exhibitions take place as part of instruction as
students with diverse ideas, experiences, and opinions share information and develop a
new, deeper understanding. To that end, however, Popham (2007) reminds us that an
effective assessment is a learning experience. Concept attainment theory (Bruner,
Goodnow, & Austin, 1956) suggests that students deepen conceptual understanding with
every use of the concept. Literally, every time students meaningfully think about an
important concept, they understand it more deeply. (For further discussion of developing
students’ conceptual understanding in teacher education at Niagara University, see Jones,
Jones & Vermette, 2008.)
With their innovative model of unit design and curricular structure, Grant Wiggins
and Jay McTighe have shaped the way educators think about authentic education. Their
Understanding by Design model clearly supports public sharing of ideas. Their key idea,
the Six Facets of Understanding, provides a solid structure for the design of assessments
(Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). These six facets: explain, interpret, apply, provide
perspective, show empathy, and metacognitive reflection provide a template to help
students and public exhibition attendees initiate verbal interaction in a public forum.
Finally, Robert Sternberg (1996), like Howard Gardner, was a theorist who saw
intelligence differently than the intelligence quotient (IQ) specialists of the previous 100
years. He recognized intelligence as not a single, fixed entity but a variety of important
abilities that can be improved with learning experiences. His triarchic theory suggested
that knowledge in use was a meaningful way to observe and assess understanding.
To extend our discussion of Sternberg’s theory, it should be acknowledged that
teachers for decades have proclaimed the benefits of hands-on learning. This idea has
expanded in recent years to both “hands-on and minds-on,” to emphasize the thinking of
students as they do their work (Vermette, 2009, p. 37). Sternberg’s theory suggests this
powerful process would be enhanced by the public sharing of the “minds on” aspect.
In this contemporary vein, it should be noted that Dweck’s (2006) call for the “growth
mindset” (p.22) similarly does not overtly demand public sharing but certainly hints that
such interactions foster deep thinking and help students recognize and appreciate their
accomplishments.
Exhibitions at Niagara University Today
Now that we have considered the theoretical basis for this type of authentic
assessment, we will turn our attention to Niagara University where public exhibitions
have evolved gradually over the past twelve years as the culminating assessment for
numerous education courses. These courses are designed to help pre- service teachers
develop and refine their teaching skills, knowledge and dispositions before embarking on
student teaching. Though there have been changes made with each iteration and variations to meet the needs of the preservice teacher cohorts, several characteristics of public
exhibitions are worthy of consideration. The following characteristics should be noted.
Vermette, Jones, Jones, and Kester-Phillips
102
Presence of Authentic Audience
In every instance, exhibition interactions are with the public and, therefore, are
largely with strangers. The diversity encountered in this model requires (a) thoughtful
transfer of conceptual knowledge (Jones, Jones, & Vermette, 2009; Perkins & Salomon,
1988; Perkins, 2009), (b) a keen set of dispositions (Hughes, Abbott-Campbell, &
Williamson, 2001; Osguthorpe, 2008), and (c) an attitude of flexibility (Davies & Bryer,
2003). All of these characteristics have been deemed important for student teacher
success (Levine, 2006).
Preservice teachers are required to bring a number of guests whom they will host for
the event. With a keen commitment to Social and Emotional Learning (Collaborative for
Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2009), this is seen as helping them to
develop the competencies of self-awareness and empathy. By placing an extra pressure
on the individual to be responsible for his or her own interactions, while having to also
care about a friend or family member’s comfort with the situation, there is a value-added
sense of responsibility placed on the preservice teachers. Interestingly, by building a
strong sense of community (Brendtro, Brokenleg, & Van Bockern, 2004; Glasser, 1998),
the caring for guests becomes a shared responsibility for all preservice teachers, giving a
welcoming atmosphere at the session.
Vermette, Jones, Jones, and Kester-Phillips
103
four core features. These features can be replicated and modified to fit one’s own
program-specific needs.
Student-Generated Demonstration of Understanding
Generally, every student in the course develops his or her station consisting of
artifacts and props that are expected to enhance the display while showing their understanding of the course’s learning objectives. In the Methods of Secondary Education
course, for example, learning objectives are written in the form of six long-term learning
targets that preservice teachers “think with” throughout the semester. On the day of the
public exhibition, preservice teachers must not only bring evidence they have accomplished each learning target, but must display their evidence in a way that will enhance
their conversations. As is congruent with other learning experiences in the course, many
students choose to work in their strongest intelligence (Gardner, 1999), creating everything from posters to songs, artistic representations to PowerPoint slideshows. The vast
amount of choice and freedom embedded in this public exhibition allows for a great deal
of ownership by the learners (Glasser, 1998; Perkins, 2009; Vermette, 2009).
Authentic, Diverse Audience Members
These public sessions call for multiple, personalized discussions. Therefore, they are
not presentations that can be scripted or rehearsed, but conversations that are real,
thoughtful, and powerful (Vygotsky, 1962). Since the typical session might involve six
or more different conversations with an audience that can range from parents to practitioners, building principals, or district superintendents, preservice teachers get a chance to
reflect, alter, modify, or adjust their thinking based on the new insights they have gained
from others. These discussions are not assessments in the traditional sense but learning
experiences (Popham, 2007). It is for this reason exhibitions have proven to be a powerful and motivating experience in developing teacher candidates.
The public attendees are usually given a set of suggested questions to help them feel
comfortable with this new and sometimes overwhelming learning experience. In the
Methods of Secondary Education course these questions are tied to the six long-term
learning targets and are written with varying levels of complexity to provide for
differentiated levels of participant- attendee interaction. While securing an enormous
number of fellow educators to serve as the audience is ideal, pre- service teachers also
invite family, friends, associates and colleagues to join in this event and therefore
questions with limited educational jargon are helpful. Also during this event, students
take scheduled breaks from presenting to spend time viewing their classmates’ work.
The resulting mix is a diverse representation of the larger culture beyond the higher
education classroom.
Extension of Professional Learning Communities
Reflection on Both the Process and Product
Since cooperative learning teams (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Vermette,
1998) and professional learning communities (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005) are used
extensively in class, the notion of sharing ideas with others is not new to these preservice
teachers at the time of the exhibition. Instead, sharing one’s ideas with the public is a
logical and meaningful extension of preservice teachers’ professional preparation
(Perkins, 2009).
Some people liken this public interaction to a job interview, as it is a chance for the
preservice teachers to practice their interview skills within a safe and communal setting.
Our preservice teachers often create their exhibition station surrounded by their teammates for support and continuity. Therefore, although there is unfamiliarity that accompanies guest interactions, there is the comfort of being at this event with those who have
been there throughout this experience.
Beyond the creation of the display, assessment of learning takes several forms.
Preservice teachers are asked to draft a short article giving an overview of their
preparations for this event and a reflection subsequent to this experience. The instructor
does not use a formal rubric to assess the hundreds of conversations that take place (as
they are too unpredictable for use as a summative assessment), but does review written
comments from attendees. Also unlike a traditional “science fair” model there are no
“winners”- each student’s public exhibition is unique and therefore not considered in
relation to others. These public sessions are particularly powerful as they offer an
incredible array of feedback to the learners (Donovan & Bransford, 2005). Grading is
not necessarily feedback (Vermette, 2009); therefore, feedback is seen as a distinctive
feature of this process.
Multiple Meaningful Discussions
“Breaking Bread” Together
Features of the Sessions
In an effort to assist those who may seek to host their own public exhibitions of
learning, the following section synthesizes the general characteristics of the sessions into
Noting the ritualistic importance of “breaking bread” with others as a means of
developing community, each preservice teacher is also asked to bring a dish to share with
community members as the event is taking place. This not only makes this event a social
104
Vermette, Jones, Jones, and Kester-Phillips
gathering (as well as an assessment of learning), but it also gives the preservice teachers
further responsibility for the planning of this event. By fostering student ownership in
this way, the public exhibition is not viewed as an assignment but a familial celebration
of communal accomplishments.
Conclusion
Public exhibitions of learning hold great promise in integrating active learning with
authentic assessment. As highlighted by the work of Perkins (2009), Gardner (1993),
and Schon (1983) (among others), holding public exhibitions is not only an opportunity
to highlight student achievement but it gives students the opportunity to extend and refine
their thinking in a meaningful way. For preservice teachers, this means the chance to
continue preparing for the realities of the 21st-century classroom while reflecting on past
accomplishments and future goals. By examining the rationale, theoretical basis, and
implementation of the public exhibition at Niagara University, our hope is that the
suggestions provided will serve as a starting place for others looking to facilitate
showcases of student learning at other institutions of teacher education. Should you like
further information about setting up a public exhibition, we would encourage you to
contact one of the authors at the email addresses provided in the Author Biographies
that follow.
References
Brendtro, L. K., Brokenleg, M., & Van Bockern, S. (2002). Reclaiming youth at risk:
Our hope for the future. Revised Edition. National Educational Service.
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking, New York:
John Wiley.
Davidson, J. (2009). Exhibitions: Connecting classroom assessment with culminating
demonstrations of mastery. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 36-43.
Davies, M., & Bryer, F. (2003). Developing emotional competence in teacher education
students: The emotional intelligence agenda. In B. Bartlett, F. Bryer, & D. Roebuck
(Eds.). Reimagining practice: Researching change. Proceedings of the 1st Annual
Conference on Cognition, Language, and Special Education, Surfers Paradise,
Volume 1 (pp. 136-148). Brisbane: Griffith University.
Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. (2005). How students learn history, mathematics, and
science in the classroom. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
DuFour, R., Eaker, R. E., & DuFour, R. B. (2005). On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York:
Random House.
Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution.
New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers.
Vermette, Jones, Jones, and Kester-Phillips
105
Hughes, P., Abbott-Campbell, J., & Williamson, J. (2001). Teaching competencies in the
classroom: Deconstructing teacher experiences. Education Research and
Perspectives, 28, 1-24.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story:
Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher,
38, 365-379.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith K. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to
college: What evidence is there that it works?, Change, 27-35.
Jones, J. L., Jones, K. A., & Vermette, P. J. (2009). Teaching mathematics understandings
for transfer. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 28(2).
Jones, K.A., Jones, J.L., & Vermette, P.J. (2008). Teachers thinking about student
thinking: An application of key concepts in teacher education. Excelsior: Leadership
in Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 114-117.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African
American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC:
Education Schools Project.
Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school
in Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press.
Osguthorpe, R. D. (2008). On the reasons we want teachers of good disposition and
moral character. Journal of Teacher Education. 59(4), 288-299.
Perkins, D. (2009). Making learning whole: how seven principles of teaching can
transform education. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass.
Perkins, D., & Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front.
Educational Leadership. 51(5), 4-7.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer.
Educational Leadership. 46(1), 22-32.
Popham, W. J. (2007). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Boston:
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Rennert-Ariev, P. (2005). A theoretical model for the authentic assessment of teaching.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(2), 1-11.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.
New York: Basic Books.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence
determine success in life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Vermette, P. J. (1998). Making cooperative learning work: Student teams in K-12
classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Vermette, P. J. (2009). Engaging teens in their own learning: 8 keys to student success.
Larchmont, NY: Eye-On-Education.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiske, M. S. (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
106
Vermette, Jones, Jones, and Kester-Phillips
Nota Bene
Author Biographies
Dr. Paul J. Vermette is a professor of education at Niagara University.
Email: [email protected]
Karrie A. Jones is a tenth- and eleventh-grade mathematics teacher at Tapestry
High School in Buffalo, New York. Email: [email protected]
Jennifer L. Jones is a seventh-grade mathematics teacher at Emmet Belknap
Middle School in Lockport, New York. Email: [email protected]
Dr. Donna Kester-Phillips is an associate professor of education at Niagara University.
Email: [email protected]
What Are You Reading?:
What Members of the NYACTE Executive Board Are Reading
Craig M. Hill, Nazareth College
Barbery, M. (2006). The elegance of the hedgehog. Europa, New York.
This French novel presents an excellent exploration of social class, intellectual
stereotypes, and commentaries on schooling. This is an enjoyable and humorous story
that grabbed my attention when one of the lead characters, Paloma, a 12-year-old-girl
plans her suicide when she turns 13. She does not have an interest in entering into an
adult world. Most of the novel centers on three lead characters. Madame Michel is the
concierge for an upscale apartment building in Paris. She presents a view of this world
and the residents in her building. Paloma lives with her family in the apartment building.
She gives her view as a child and a student deeply alienated by the world she sees.
Paloma brings an insightful view of her teachers and the teaching process that educators
would enjoy.
The third key character is Mr. Ozu, a Japanese businessman who recently moves into
the apartment complex. Mr. Ozu becomes the great mediator and friend to Madame
Michel and Paloma. The story has you enter into intellectual dialogues but engages you
in the story of three fascinating characters.
The author, Muriel Barbery, is a French philosophy professor who engages readers
in the life of her characters as well as a humorous philosophical analysis of intellectual
elitism and social class. While engaging in this view of the world you meet, laugh, and
ponder many questions presented by the author’s characters.
I would recommend the book on many levels. In particular, I enjoyed discovering
Paloma’s views on schooling. In the end you will laugh with the characters and how they
present their world view to us.
***
Joanne M. Curran, SUNY College at Oneonta
VanSlyke-Briggs, K. (2010). The nurturing teacher: Managing the stress of caring.
Lantham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Having a faculty member complete a book is always a cause for celebration, and that
book being grounded in theory and including case studies of teachers in the field makes
this a must read. The Nurturing Teacher is a theory-based discussion of the nurturing role
of teachers, those who care deeply about their students, and a self-help guide to taking
care of oneself in light of that deep caring. Dr. Van Slyke-Briggs talks about the
nurturing role that is assumed by both men and women and how that role can result in
serious and often unrecognized stress that can be debilitating and lead to job burnout.
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 5, Number 1
Fall / Winter 2010
107
What Are You Reading?
108
The premise is that the best teachers, those who go beyond delivering content and truly
care about their students as much as their subject matter, are most susceptible to
nurturance suffering, “the stress and emotional responses that result from nurturing
behavior by the teacher in a school setting” (p. 13).
This is a quick-read filled with specific ideas for recognizing and managing stress,
encouraging the teacher to take control of his or her reactions to the events of the day.
Seven cases are presented, representing an amalgam of middle- and high-school teachers
interviewed by Dr. Van Slyke-Briggs over the course of several semesters. Each case
includes a short description, vignette, review, and analysis—focused on the nurturance
suffering experienced by the teacher and ways to cope with that experience.
This is a great read for student teachers, new teachers, and experienced teachers who
are worn out by the demands of the profession. As Stephanie Paterson, another scholar
who has addressed the stress of teaching, notes in the foreword, times are changing and
the demands on teachers are ever-increasing. This book may provide the essential
supports that teachers need to stay the course and remain effective in the schools.
Author Biographies
Craig Hill, Ed. D. is Chair of the Adolescence Education Programs at Nazareth College.
He has a high interest in special education as well as differentiated instruction for
all learners. He tries to chisel out a little time to just read novels and history.
E-mail: [email protected]
Joanne M. Curran, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Educational Psychology and
Associate Dean of the Division of Education at SUNY College at Oneonta.
What Professors at Lehman College, City University of New York,
Are Reading
Responding to a call to share what we read, we decided to focus on the novel as our
genre of choice. We wanted to make the case that reading novels, a genre outside of our
respective fields, has application for what we do as professors. Like characters in fiction,
professors grapple with complex human relationships and meanings. We discussed
whether there was commonality among the novels we chose and discovered the idea of
transformation. We look upon transformation as significant, sometimes difficult, change
in knowing and understanding, often resulting in change in behavior. It is our hope that
we support this kind of transformation in our students as they, too, learn and teach.
***
Abigail McNamee, Department of Early Childhood and Childhood Education
Conroy, P. (2009). South of broad. New York: Doubleday.
Stockett, K. (2009). The help. New York: G. F. Putnam.
I began reading novels because my mother seemed to prefer that I be neither seen
nor heard. What better escape from a careful way of behaving? I crossed over as I
escaped into novels and became another person…if not all together. I became tentatively
seen and heard as a college student, as a teacher, then as a professor; but, no crossover is
109
What Are You Reading?
perfect. When I slip back into my mother’s perceived preference, novels remain my
crossover into the imaginary me who practices a new real me. Two recent novels are in
my service.
Conroy’s novels always introduce difficult parents, difficult lives, difficult choices.
In South of Broad, Leo, teen then adult, crosses over: from his mother’s preference for
his older brother who commits suicide; from the loss of his older brother’s protection;
from his own isolation; from an impossible love he lost; from an impossible love he
gained; from racist, haughty north of Broad Charleston…to what? To himself as a friend
of the unacceptable, to himself befriended, to joy in the random “power of accident and
magic in human affairs.”
Stockett’s first novel, The Help, is about a difficult time, the 1960s civil rights
movement, and three women in Mississippi—Skeeter, wealthy and White; Aibileen and
Minny, Black maids. They work together, first tentatively then zestily, on a secret project
that crosses the lines of their town and their lives, putting each of them at risk.
These authors remind the imaginary me that I, too, can practice crossing over from
quiet invisibility to being seen and heard, to enjoying accident and magic, to putting
myself at risk with others…often unexpected others. If I imagine, then practice, these
crossovers in my reading and my teaching, perhaps my students will as well.
***
Penny Prince, Department of Music
Verghese, A. (2009). Cutting for stone. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Sometimes a novel comes along that transports us to a culture foreign to our own,
yet allows us to feel as though we live and breathe it ourselves. Cutting for Stone by
Abraham Verghese accomplishes this brilliantly. Before I read Verghese, I had little
knowledge of the poverty stricken, repressive Ethiopia of Haile Selassi. I knew only a
smattering about fistula, syphilis, and diphtheria. Verghese’s characters are so authentic
and multi-dimensional, that one is drawn into their land and the practice of medicine.
Dr. Thomas Stone, a British physician, and Sister Mary Joseph Praise, a nurse who
has recently taken orders, sail to Addis Ababa in the 1950s. Their goal is to heal the sick
in Missing Hospital. (The name was meant to be Mission Hospital, but an accident of
fate gave it this significant title.) As Stone and Praise labor to save the neediest in a
society with the most primitive medical care, they develop a close professional
relationship founded on trust and respect. Their passion extends to the personal, as well.
Against all odds and in total secrecy, even to Dr. Stone, Sister Mary Joseph becomes
pregnant, and dies during the childbirth of twins Marion and Shiva. Once the secret is
revealed, Stone flees in torment and regret, and the orphans are raised by an
unforgettable group of physicians and caregivers at the hospital. The brothers grow to
love medicine. Through their understanding of this discipline, they learn lessons about
their people and their callings in life.
As an educator, I have seen how music eliminates walls between us. Verghese’s
compelling story and memorably original characters clearly have that power as well.
***
Andrea Zakin, Department of Early Childhood and Childhood Education
Strout, E. (2008). Olive Kitteridge. New York: Random House.
What Are You Reading?
110
Olive Kitteridge, the central character of Elizabeth Strout’s book of the same name,
is not a person you like or want to know. Judgmental, overbearing, and occasionally
cruel, she alienates her son and patronizes her husband. The book presents a multifaceted
view of Olive so that she becomes a fully realized character, and you can no longer
remember a time when you did not know her or have her in your life. Long after the
book is finished, Olive Kitteridge remains. That one cares deeply about her is a
miraculous transformation that reveals her essential humanity.
What does this book have to do with teaching? Like a good book, teaching can effect
a profound change in student perception and understanding that occurs so incrementally
that students can no longer remember what it was like not to think as they now do. Just
as Olive is revealed in all her prickly complexity, so does teaching reveal the inherent
complexity of a particular subject. Just as one feels intimately connected to Olive by the
end of the book, so do students similarly feel closely attuned to the process and content
of a course by the time they complete it. The multiple viewpoints of student members
enrich understanding of a specific topic just as the differing perspectives of the book’s
characters deepen our understanding of Olive. This is the way in which we come to
know ourselves and extend our comprehension and knowledge of our world.
Change occurs even when we do not realize or especially want it. But we recognize
it when it happens. This is the challenge of a good book and good teaching. Olive
Kitteridge was a teacher; as such, she is a fitting example of a good book and
good teaching.
***
Cecilia M. Espinosa. Department of Early Childhood and Childhood Education
Allende, I. (2010). The island beneath the sea. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
In her latest novel, under the genre of “Magical Realism,” Latin American writer
Isabel Allende brings us once again the history of the Americas from the female and
subaltern perspective. Through her careful descriptions of characters and places, we
learn about the cruel realities and complexities of the world of slavery and its riots in
Saint-Domingue (now Haiti) towards the end of the 18th century. This thoughtfully
crafted narrative continues in New Orleans, where Allende illustrates the ways in which
these worlds were already intimately connected.
In this story we accompany Zarité in her first 40 years of life. She is a mulatto slave
bought at a young age by Valmorain, a wealthy plantation owner. She serves his mentally
fragile wife even in her most basic needs and becomes a mother-like figure to the
couple’s son Maurice. Given her beauty, Zarité endures Valmorain’s degrading sexual
advances for decades. She bears his unrecognized children, while putting aside her love
Gambo.
Ultimately, Allende’s novel is the story of a fighter who in spite of being a slave, a
mulatto, and a woman in the 18th-century Caribbean, learns from others that one must
write one’s own destiny, and dignity must be achieved in spite of circumstances. Her
mentors become a healer, a cook, a courtesan, and a casino owner. On her journey she
discovers the meaning of community and the importance of organizing. She experiences
the power of dance to free body and spirit, even if only momentarily; and she encounters
a few White people who challenge the times.
From my perspective as an educator, Allende’s novel highlights the need to include
varied perspectives to fill the gaps of the official story.
What Are You Reading?
111
Marta A. Ghezzo, Department of Music
Munthe, A. (1929). The story of San Michele. Reprinted in paperback, 2004. New York:
Carroll and Graf.
Translated into forty-five languages, The Story of San Michele by Axel Munthe
(1857-1949) became one of the best-sellers of the 20th century. The book is based on the
author’s biography, and also incorporates elements of fiction.
Within thirty-two chapters, the fascinating life of Swedish doctor Axel Munthe
unfolds, starting from when he was 18 years old and first visited the island of Capri.
He climbed up to Anacapri where he found the ruins of a chapel named San Michele. He
was enchanted by the magnificent view, and started fantasizing about building his dream
villa there.
Munthe studied medicine in Paris, and received his M.D. at the age of 26. He
became a “fashionable doctor” in France, with a large practice that included high society.
Yet his humanitarian nature was revealed by how he treated the poor with compassion.
Some of the stories are heart breaking, like that of the French girl dying from typhoid
fever and her mother’s suffering. In 1884, during the cholera epidemic in Naples, and in
1898, after the earthquake in Messina, Munthe helped the sick and injured.
In 1887, Munthe bought a piece of land in Anacapri. With the help of the locals, he
spent five summers building his Villa San Michele while collecting ancient artifacts
dating back to the time of Tiberius. Munthe stayed in Anacapri over five decades. He
died at the age of 92.
A few years ago, I was fortunate enough to visit Villa San Michele. I was greatly
impressed by Munthe’s precise descriptions of the villa and surroundings, his enthusiasm
towards people, and his artistic sense reflected through his writing.
This book is not only entertaining but also reflects humanity, dignity, dedication,
perseverance and faith—the qualities of a meaningful life. This book was a great
inspiration for me as a teacher.
***
Ralph William Boone, English Department
Beah, I. (2007). A long way gone: Memoirs of a boy soldier. New York: Sarah Crichton
Books.
A Long Way Gone is the first-person narrative of child-soldier Ishmael Beah. Born in
Mogbwemo, Sierra Leone, in 1980, his narrative is a testament to the power of the
human spirit to survive degradation, trauma, and drug-induced frenzies, yet, still emerge
a healed, complete soul.
On the cusp of adolescence, Ishmael, with his older brother and friend Talloi, head
off to walk the sixteen miles to Mattru Jong to enter their rap and hip-hop act in a talent
competition. Dressed in “T-shirts,…soccer jerseys,…baggy jeans, and underneath
them…. soccer shorts and sweatpants,” little did Ishmael expect that he would soon trade
in these clothes for army shorts, cocaine mixed with gunpowder, machine guns, RPGs,
and his new best friend, an AK-47 rifle. Thus at age 13, Beah is forcibly drafted into the
chillingly surreal world of the child-soldier. For four years he is taught to revel in the
degradation of senseless killing and to depend on his new squad family for comfort.
112
What Are You Reading?
When one day he is removed by UNICEF from his new family and taken to the
capital city, Freetown, for rehabilitation, he resents it bitterly and at first struggles fiercely
to return to his squad. As he battles against the sudden trauma of detoxification, Ishmael
sheds the effects of marijuana and cocaine, and, with the understanding of an endlessly
patient nurse, learns to unlock “the fastened mantle” of his war memories and to reclaim
his humanity.
This memoir chronicles the journey of a tenderly human soul lost and then found.
As happens with many transformations in life, Ishmael needed the unwavering belief and
support of a caring stranger to reach his fulfillment. His story inspires me to create the
best teacher-student relationships I can.
What Are You Reading?
113
Author Biographies
Abigail McNamee, Ed.D., Ph.D., is Professor of Early Childhood and Chair of the
Department of Early Childhood and Childhood Education at Lehman College,
CUNY. Her research and writing include children and stress (divorce, death, and
adoption), children’s conceptualization of reading and of cultural group; as well as
poetry, screenplay, play writing, and children’s picture books.
Email: [email protected]
Penny Prince, Ph. D., is Assistant Professor of Music at Lehman College, CUNY.
She is a pianist and composer of numerous musicals. Her research interests include
collaborative musical theater and developing strategies to motivate students through
the use of student cues. E-mail: [email protected]
Andrea Zakin, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Art Education at Lehman College, City
University of New York in the Bronx, New York. Her artwork focuses on psychological
and political interpretations of myth and fairytale, and her research is concerned with
aesthetic education and the cognitive dimensions of art instruction and production.
Email: [email protected]
Cecilia M. Espinosa, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Education at Lehman College,
CUNY in the Bronx, New York. Her research interests include bilingualism and
biliteracy, inquiry and reflective practice, and collaborative action research in urban
multilingual settings. E-mail: [email protected]
Marta A. Ghezzo, Ph.D., is Professor of Music at Lehman College, CUNY. Her
specialization is Musicology, Theory, and Ear Training. She delivered Master classes
in the United States and abroad (Rome, Montevarchi, Perugia, Helsinki, Jerusalem,
Seoul, Odessa, and other sites). She is the author of Solfège, Ear Training, Dictation,
Rhythm and Music Theory (UAP, 3rd ed., 2005), which is also translated into Korean
(Seoul: Eumag Chunchu Publications, 2000), and Italian (G. Ricordi & C.s.p.a.,
Milan, 1985). E-mail: [email protected]
Ralph William Boone, MPA, MA, is an adjunct lecturer in the Department of English
at Lehman College for the past four years. He is a key instructor and mentor in the
Freshman Year Initiative Program, which assists freshmen with the transition between
high school and college. His professional research interest is the history of Blacks in
Russia dating from Ovid to the present. He is also an accomplished singer and
musical theater performer. Email: [email protected]
Kamina
Book Review of
The Edutainer: Connecting the Art and Science
of Teaching
By Brad Johnson and Tammy Maxson McElroy (2010).
Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Penina A. Kamina
SUNY College at Oneonta
The title of the book contains a new, unique word, the “edutainer,” which happens to
be a prefix and a suffix combination of the words educator and entertainer. The title, The
Edutainer, is a summary of the metaphor used throughout this book. The educator is seen
as having the same roles as the entertainer: performing very well and leaving an impressive mark on learners. Johnson and McElroy propose there are several common threads
between the two professions that teachers should simulate in this Information Age to
fully involve and submerge the learner in instruction. Besides the theme of the entire
book, the term edutainer also refers to teachers in general. This reference includes the
authors, who are perceptive teachers, as they share experiences that have made a difference and impact in the lives of learners.
The book is arranged in seven scenes that are grouped into three acts. It has also two
intermissions, a finale, and the encore. Act I, the vision, covers Scenes 1 and 2. Act II, the
rehearsal, covers Scenes 3, 4, and 5; and Act III, the performance, deals with the last two
scenes. In the American society, entertainment and art forms a huge part of the culture.
Given also the prevailing technological advances, it is imperative that educational
institutions integrate the entertainment skills of vision, preparation, communication, and
performance. The teacher is no longer the only source of information. The role of teacher
has become that of a facilitator.
In Scene 1, the authors make the case that when culture changes, education ought to
change also to be relevant and “relatable” (p. 10) as modeled within the business world,
within technology, and even religion (although I may disagree with this one). They stress
that education should go beyond sitting still, taking notes, and memorizing information
for a test. They outline in details the roles of the teacher as follows: (1) focuses on
building students’ relationships and interpersonal abilities; (2) works with parents and the
community, for a “stellar performance.” (3) makes school relevant to a learner’s current
life (i.e., by assigning learners responsibilities to actively take ownership of learning);
and (4) collaborates with colleagues or, in their words, “partners in crime.” Scene 2 deals
with the leadership characteristics required of the 21st-century teacher. These characteristics include developing confidence; planning; maintaining a healthy lifestyle; continually
seeking professional growth; being proactive; incorporating humor, passion,
professionalism, reflection, flexibility, and vulnerability; and empowering others.
114
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 5, Number 1
Fall / Winter 2010
115
Scene 3 is about planning instruction and the organization of the physical classroom
environment. The authors have done an excellent job in bulleting organizational ideas for
the start of an academic year, describing the classroom routines to be established on
pages 57 to 72. “From the first act to the closing of the curtain, no class is left to chance”
(p. 72). Scene 4 lays out organizational details and strategies that are, achievable and
doable for all educators. Scene 5 looks at classroom management and discusses the
concept of multi-management as instrumental in being efficient and effective both
inside and outside of class.
In Scene 6, the authors point out the significance of maintaining proper
communication with students, parents, principal, and partners (fellow colleagues) by
being a keen listener, orator, performer, and speaker. This may require knowing the
audience very well. For instance, a student might require two invitations to a school
function due to the parents’ divorce or separation. The authors emphasize being real,
vulnerable, realistic, firm, and authentic with appropriate perspectives. Lastly, Scene 7
explores the teaching philosophy educators should possess as the authors share their
views here, too. On page 147 onwards to the end of Scene 7, they explore the process in
the “tiers of instruction.” These tiers consist of a foundational, personalization, and
transformation levels. On page 150, Johnson and McElroy provide a visual of an arrow
that ascends upward. I found this graphic could have been more helpful if it were
accompanied with a scale and label for in-depth interpretation.
Intermission 1 and 2 give suggestions of field-tested ideas, activities, and games a
teacher can use during down time. Extensions and authentic tasks such as having a guest
speaker, alumni, special groups, local police, or fire department to bridge the gap
between school and real life are provided.
Throughout The Edutainer, both the subtle and non-subtle tools of the education
“trade” and skills are enlisted. The appendix (aka “encore”) alone has approximately
forty classroom ideas in a condensed form that range from charts and a parent contact
sheet to portfolio suggestions for elementary students. As a teacher, you may want to
email the authors to attach the encore portion to you electronically. Teachers can either
use the materials as is or adapt certain sections to suit their context and situation.
The Edutainer is a practical book. It covers a great deal of helpful information that a
practicing teacher should know. It includes memorable mnemonics (i.e., D.E.A.R.
mnemonic for Drop Everything and Read), wise sayings, did-you-know facts, strategies
that work for the diverse American classroom (i.e., the 3 Rs, the 4 Ps, the 5 Ws), and an
explanation of Dyknow (a technology tool for checking out credible sources), as opposed to the “bells and whistles.”
This book is a practical enumeration of the art and science of teaching that all
teachers, be they either beginners or mature teachers, should read. Educators will want to
keep a copy of the book for reference. The book discusses the educational profession or
trade in a captivating way and uses simple language and theatrical imagery. It reminds us
that some education facts may be the same from antiquity to date, but there is an urgent
call to tweak these facts to suit the current needs.
Author Biography
Penina Kamina, Ph.D is Assistant Professor of Mathematics Education at SUNY College at
Oneonta, New York. Her current research interests include preservice teachers’
mathematical content and pedagogical maturation and programming with elementary
students on Lego Robotics. She views mathematics teaching and learning as negotiation of
meanings with the expert as a facilitator. Email: [email protected]
VanSlyke-Briggs and Dean
Book Review of In the Public Eye
By Joanne Kilgour Dowdy (2009). Boardman,
OH: Commess University Press.
Kjersti VanSlyke-Briggs and Carol S. Dean
SUNY College at Oneonta
Although I (Kjersti) was familiar with the writings of Joanne Kilgour Dowdy, it was
not until 2007 that I had the opportunity to meet her in person. She was an invited guest
speaker to my campus in Oneonta and because I was part of the committee that brought
her, I was able to go to dinner with her and other members of the group. We went to a
local restaurant that attempts to capture in upstate New York what eating at a Texas ranch
must be. The dining room is adorned with a diverse collection of taxidermy animals and
the fare has a focus on all things steak. As a part time vegetarian, I was immediately
worried and did not want to appear a simpleton. My first impressions of Joanne Dowdy
were that she was regal. Her posture was perfect, her articulation precise, and she looked
poised to take the throne. I, on the other hand, was not. Once we went to take our seats,
however, she set everyone at ease with one simple joke. Finding no place to hang our
coats, she joked that, “there must be some antlers someplace.”
Sadly, I was forced to miss her lecture. As we entered the ballroom where she was
to speak, I received a frantic call from my husband that our toddler had come down with
the flu and threw up literally all over the car, the house, and him. Explaining my excuses
to Joanne, she encouraged me to go be with my daughter and noted that I was needed
more there.
It is this same unrestrained graciousness, wit, and beauty that we—Kjersti and
Carol—feel is captured in the autobiographical text, In the public eye. Dowdy’s book
invites the reader to not only be a temporary voyeur into her life, but also to engage with
this life telling through her weaving of photo, quotes, newspaper clips, artifact documents, and
narrative. There is honesty in each image and Dowdy befriends the reader on every
page. As was stated by Lisa Allen-Agostini of the “Trinidad Guardian” in 2000 of
Dowdy’s one-woman show, Dowdy tells her tale, “well and joyously; that she the little
girl complaining about always having to be good, could grow up good, or bad, and shrug
within her skin, content with what she is” (Dowdy, 2009, p. 113). In the public eye
reveals this in the author and follows her development from a young child in Trinidad to
the professorial position she holds now at Kent State. This is a life lived on the stage, in
front of the camera, on television, on bookshelves, and at the front of a classroom.
While all the photos are striking, perhaps the one with the most impact for us is
titled, “Dark Offering” and displays an image of Dowdy on stage, in a black-and-white photo,
head back and arms flung wide in movement (p. 63). It is contrast, movement, power,
and vulnerability all in one quick image. With no other context associated with the
photo, it leaves the viewer to make his or her own assumptions. One can read into
the image the emotions, story, and meaning that is unique to each person’s telling and
background. This photo speaks volumes about not only this text, but about the author.
She is a natural force acting upon those who are touched by her work.
116
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 5, Number 1
Fall / Winter 2010
117
The book closes with a photo of three of her Trinidad teachers standing side by side in
dresses, hats, and gloves. The image captivates a time long gone that is still alive in the
work of once pupil and now teacher, Joanne Kilgour Dowdy.
For many years now, education researchers and philosophers have been extolling the
merits of reflective practice (Cochran-Smith, 1993; Ross, 1992; Schön, 1983, 1991).
Dowdy’s book shares her reflections with the reader: how she has led her life in response
to them and why she is the person and professor she is today. Dowdy’s book is an
engaging example of the value of narrative and autobiography in teaching. Witherell
(1991) appreciates the power of story and metaphor in offering up possibilities for
human action and feeling.
Whether inventing, reading, or listening to stories, reading or writing journals and
autobiographies, conducting oral history interviews, or engaging in therapeutic
dialogues, the teller or receiver of stories can discover connections between self and
other, penetrate barriers to understanding, and come to know more deeply the
meanings of his or her own historical and cultural narrative. Story and metaphor
provide a form of educational encounter that renders us human and frees the moral
imagination. (p. 94)
In The Public Eye presents possibilities for teachers and students alike to draw upon their
own life stories as they develop as learners and learning communities. As Palmer (2000)
appreciates, by listening to our lives and letting them speak, we can become ourselves;
that is what Dowdy has done through In The Public Eye.
References
Cochran-Smith, & Lytle, S. (Eds.). (1993). Inside outside: Teacher research and
knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Palmer, P. (2000). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ross, E., Cornett, J., & McCutcheon, G. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher personal theorizing:
Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.
New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. (Ed.). (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Witherell, C. (1991). The self in narrative: A journey into paradox. In C. Witherell & N.
Noddings (Eds.), Stories lives tell: Narrative and dialogue in education (pp. 83-95).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Author Biographies
Kjersti VanSlyke-Briggs is Assistant Professor at the State University of New York
Oneonta where she teaches in the Secondary Education Department. Her research
focus is in English education and literacy. She is Past-President of the New York
State English Council, and her publications include The Nurturing Teacher:
Managing the Stress of Caring (2010, Rowman & Littlefield Education).
Email: [email protected].
Carol S. Dean, Ed.D. joined the State University of New York at Oneonta as
Assistant Professor of Foreign Language Education in 2008. Prior to that, she was
a middle-school French teacher for 10 years and an administrator for 8 years.
Her research interests include teacher identity and the relationship between teacher
expectations and student achievement. Email: [email protected].
118
119
Call for Manuscripts
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning provides a forum to explore issues
related to teaching and learning at public and independent colleges and universities with
programs in teacher preparation. Excelsior solicits original, thought-provoking manuscripts of various formats, including papers presenting research on issues and practices
important to teacher education and in-depth discussions of perspectives on issues and
practices that contribute to the preparation and professional development of educators. A
third format—Nota Bene—contains brief, focused articles; book reviews; website or
technology recommendations; and a What Are You Reading? feature.
Deadlines for submission:
June 1 for the fall/winter edition
December 1 for the spring/summer edition
CALL FOR NOTA BENE’S
“WHAT ARE YOU READING?” FEATURE
Send us a short description of the professional book you have read recently. Tell us, what
are you reading and what do you think of it? Would you recommend it to other teacher
educators? Why? How has it informed your practice, your research, or yourself as a
teacher educator?
Brief, focused articles; book reviews; or website or technology recommendations
are also requested for this section.
Deadlines for submission:
June 1 for the fall/winter edition
December 1 for the spring/summer edition
See also projected deadline
for our upcoming Special Topic Issue.
CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS FOR SPECIAL TOPIC ISSUE:
Manuscript Preparation and Submission
How are teacher education programs preparing teachers for the 21st century classroom?
Why, or in what ways, is instructional technology important to teaching?
To submit a manuscript to be considered for review
• Send an electronic file compatible with Microsoft Word as an e-mail attachment to the
editor, Cynthia Lassonde, at [email protected].
• Manuscripts must follow APA style as outlined in the most recent edition of the
APA style manual.
• Research and Perspectives manuscripts should not exceed 25 pages, including
references. Nota Bene manuscripts should not exceed 5 pages, including references.
• Include a 100-word abstract for Research and Perspectives manuscripts.
• The cover page should consist of the title of the manuscript, a suggested running head,
as well as the authors’ names, affiliations, addresses, e-mail addresses, and
telephone numbers.
• Omit headers and footers except for page numbers.
• Omit all identifiers of the authors and affiliations from the manuscript. Be sure
computer software does not reveal author’s identity as well.
• Secure all permissions to quote copyrighted text or use graphics and/or figures of other
non-original material. Include permissions with manuscript.
• Data-based manuscripts involving human subjects should be submitted with a
statement or verification from the author that an Institutional Review Board certificate
or letter approving the research and guaranteeing protection of human subjects has
been obtained from the researcher’s institution.
Manuscripts will be subject to a blind review by peer reviewers and the
editor. The review process will take approximately three months from time of submission.
All manuscripts will be judged on their scholarship, contribution to the knowledge
base, timeliness of topic, creative/thoughtful approach, clarity and cohesiveness,
appropriateness to category, and adherence to preparation guidelines. Selections may
also be affected by editorial decisions regarding the overall content of a particular edition.
Instructional Technology in Teacher Education
Deadline June 1, 2011
With Guest Consultant Editors
Gary DeBolt, Ed.D.,
Associate Professor, Education
Roberts Wesleyan College, Rochester, New York,
and
Sarah McPherson, Ph.D.,
Chair, Instructional Technology
New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, New York
Topics may include (but are not limited to)
• What new technologies are most useful as preservice teachers prepare for their
teaching careers?
• How do teacher education preparation programs incorporate new instructional
technologies in their programs?
• What does research tell us about effective uses of new technologies to improve
student learning and teaching?
• What are effective uses of online courses in teacher education?_
• What knowledge and skills should teacher education programs provide for
assessing effects of technology on learning in the classroom?
• What should teachers know about technology for students with special needs?
• What challenges do teacher education programs face in preparing teachers for
applying instructional technology in their teaching careers?
• How are teacher education programs addressing the following new technologies
for use in classrooms?
120
Social networking (Facebook, MySpace, etc.)
Web 2.0 tools (wikis, blogs, and nings)
Gaming, virtual worlds, and alternative realities
Student Response Systems
Interactive presentation systems (SmartBoards, etc.)
Cell phones, iPods, or other mobile devices
• How should teacher education programs prepare teachers to negotiate legal, ethical,
and equitable uses of technology in classrooms?
• What are effective teacher preparation models for university and K-12 collaboration?
• What are future trends for using technology in teaching and learning?
121
Excelsior:
Leadership in Teaching and Learning
A forum for research-based discourse to inform the preparation and professional
development of educators
Yearly Subscription (2 issues) $30
Contact Editor for Library Subscription Rate
[email protected]
Make checks payable to NYACTE. Mail check with information below to
Cindy Lassonde
Editor, Excelsior
SUNY College at Oneonta
501 Fitzelle Hall
Oneonta, NY 13820
Your Name ________________________________________________________
Mailing Address ___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Email Address ______________________________________________________