Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Cultivating Communities of Practice Report on Initiatives in the City Colleges of Chicago Early Childhood Education Programs under a Grant from the Robert R. McCormick Foundation 2009-2011
2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Contextualization ............................................................................................................................ 4 Overview of Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 5 Summary Initiative Activities ......................................................................................................... 6
Professional Development .............................................................................................................. 6 Introduction to Teacher Research ............................................................................................... 6 Ethics/Oversight Strategies ......................................................................................................... 7 CCCECE Newsletter ................................................................................................................... 7
Teacher Research Projects .............................................................................................................. 7
Conferences..................................................................................................................................... 8 Self-Study Survey ........................................................................................................................... 8
Curriculum Work ............................................................................................................................ 9
Resource library and AV equipment............................................................................................... 9
Conclusions and Outcomes/Recommendations .............................................................................. 9 Appendix A: Contextualization–Aristotle’s Categories of Human Activity ................................ 11
Appendix B: Cultivating Communities of Practice – Literature Review by Lynne Sabas, Ph.D.
(Research Consultant) .............................................................................................................. 12 Appendix C: Sample of Newsletter .............................................................................................. 21
Appendix D: Teacher Research Project for Academic Program Students – Case Study Strategy
by Carrie Nepstad, M.S. (HWC) .............................................................................................. 27
Appendix E: Teacher Research Project – Jump, Frog, Jump by William O'Donnell, M.S. (MXC)
.................................................................................................................................................. 29 Appendix F: Teacher Research Project –Teacher Research; What Is It? by Irma Ortega, M.A.
(Daley College) ........................................................................................................................ 31
Appendix G: Survey – City Colleges of Chicago Child Development Lab Center Research
Project ....................................................................................................................................... 33
3
Introduction
The overarching purpose of the project “Creating Communities of Practice” is to
develop increased efficacy among the academic components and the lab centers of the
Child Development Programs across the District of the City Colleges of Chicago (CCC)
by cultivating integration and cohesion.
The City Colleges of Chicago Early Childhood Education (CCCECE) programs
serve students, children, and families across the City of Chicago by means of two major
components: the Academic Programs and the Lab Centers for Young Children. The
Academic Programs offer Associate Degrees and Advanced Certificate programs in
Child Development at six of seven citywide campuses. Estimated enrollment in Child
Development courses is about 1000 students per semester (in 2010-11), with 17 faculty
and an estimated 30 adjunct faculty at all campuses. The Lab Centers for Young
Children, located at five campuses, served 204 children ages 3-5, and 190 families in
2010-11. Professional practitioners at the sites include one director per site, and a total
of 11 teachers and 14 teacher assistants. The Lab Centers support the education,
training, and development of students at CCC in terms of observations and field
placements. The Lab Centers also provide care and learning experiences to the
children they serve. Shareholder groups encompassed in the CCCECE programs are
academic program students and faculty, lab center teachers and directors, and children
and families within the communities of each campus.
Primary research questions that were developed as a starting point for the
initiatives were:
How do we develop new knowledge and practices to cultivate increased
integration and cohesion among the academic components and the lab centers
of CCCECE?
How do we create opportunities and forums to share new knowledge/practices?
Sub-questions that emerged from the primary questions were:
What are Communities of Practice (CoPs) in the field of Early Childhood
Education?
How can we cultivate CoPs in the Child Development Programs of CCC?
What can we learn about the lab centers and the relationships among the lab
centers and the academic programs?
How can we foster a more effective synergy between the lab centers and the
academic programs?
How can we develop connections between our academic programs and the field?
In terms of possible approaches to developing synergy within the CCC Child
Development Program, three key assumptions arose as points of departure from which
the project would unfold. These are that
4
cultivating Communities of Practices (CoPs) are a key element for achieving the
purpose of the research project, which is to develop a more successful
integration, cohesion, and efficacy among the academic components and the lab
centers across the District.
developing reflective practices are an intrinsic element of this cultivation.
teacher research projects are an essential mode for integrating reflective
practices with meeting standards pertaining to learning outcomes and for
collaborative discovery of new knowledge in service of the programs.
The majority of the key initiatives of the overall project emerged from professional
development; these were events and related outreach intended to stimulate and to
support teacher inquiry projects, as well as participation in conferences. A major theme
of the initiatives was self-study, which emerged through the reflective component of the
teacher research projects and also by means of a pilot self-study.
Contextualization
In order to contextualize the overall project within the larger field of education and
to provide rationale for our orientations/methods, the following background material
presents brief overview of action research, of the constructivist approach, and of
constructs of knowledge.
The research questions demonstrate that the nature of the overall project is
action research, and best addressed from a constructivist, emergent approach.
According to Thomas Schwandt (2001), the primary intention of action research is
improvement and involvement. Involvement means inclusive participation of
practitioners in planning, observation documentation of data, action, and reflection.
Improvement means changing a situation involving specific social practices in order to
enhance understanding of or agency in practice, and/or to remake the practice (3-4).
The constructivist approach is one key component in action research. Schwandt
characterizes the constructivist approach as the invention of “concepts, models, and
schemes to make sense of reality.” As new experience and information accumulates,
these constructions are tested and modified. Because construction takes place in socio-
culturally determined contexts, it is mediated by means of shared concerns (30-31).The
constructivist approach is therefore process-based, and the design of these processes
is emergent in that new knowledge influences how the process unfolds.
A useful preliminary orientation to the project emerges from constructs
associated with knowledge activities as characterized by Aristotle, which have been
further developed in terms of education by Habermas and Gadamer. Here, we are
concerned with two of the three modes proposed by Aristotle: the productive mode and
the practical mode. The third mode, referred to as theory by Aristotle, is excluded from
5
this discussion, because in Aristotle’s conceptualization it is concerned with absolute
truths. Appendix A provides a schematic for these activities.
Aristotle designates the productive mode of knowledge activities as poiesis. The
intention of productive activity has to do with making or fabrication, and the knowledge
required for, or that governs, this activity is separable from the user of that knowledge.
The knowledge necessary to carry out the productive mode is techne; that is, a
specialized constellation of skills that bring about the intended outcome. The productive
mode of knowledge is essentially a means-ends project. In educational contexts,
productive knowledge is concerned with activities such as creating a rubric, or guiding a
class discussion or activity.
Practical activity, praxis, on the other hand, is concerned with one’s role in
society in relation with other humans. Unlike poiesis, in which the end is separable from
the means, in praxis the purpose of the activity is realized in the doing and is therefore
inseparable from it. The form of knowledge needed for praxis is phronesis; that is, the
knowledge and wisdom called for by living mindfully in the pursuit of human good. In
educational contexts, this form of activity would be manifested in guiding a class in
reflective activities, or in designing service-learning projects that link academic pursuits
with larger social embedment.
More recently, social critics and philosophers H. Gadamer and J. Habermas have
offered further useful clarifications to conceptualizations of productive and practical
activity applicable to trends in present-day education. According to Schwandt , these
thinkers identify
a …troubling and dangerous feature of modernity (that) is the assimilation of
praxis (the practical domain of personal and social affairs) into techne. Roughly,
this is the equivalent to treating every human situation in which practical-moral
judgment is required (e.g., in teaching, managing, and providing health care or
social services) as presenting a technical problem to be solved by the application
of knowledge generated via method (208).
Schwandt’s observation marks a significant aspect of the research project; which
is the role of reflective practices linked with action research in the current intersections
of the cultural landscapes of the Child Development Programs and the Lab Centers of
CCC.
Overview of Literature Review
The methodological approaches for the project began with a delimited literature
search to establish some background for the project, specifically searching for case
studies of similar projects. Refer to Appendix B for the Literature Review.
6
Summary Initiative Activities
The activities undertaken to develop CoPs among the Child Development
Programs included professional development events and workshop sessions, teacher
research projects, participation in conferences, outreach in the form of a newsletter, a
pilot self-study survey, curriculum work on the 10 core Child Development courses, and
building an AV resource library for each campus.
Professional Development
Seven professional development events took place between February and May
of 2010. The purpose of these events was to provide forums for new learning and
practice that were guided by special consultants from the larger field of early childhood
development. These forums centered on topic areas of teacher research, connecting
practice with ethics, and developing oversight practices for practicum students.
Introduction to Teacher Research
The teacher research initiative began with an event at Erikson Institute on 19
February 2010, convened by project leader Carrie Nepstad. The presenter was
consultant Debra Murphy, Professor & Program Coordinator at Cape Cod Community
College, adjunct faculty at Wheelock College, and doctoral candidate at Lesley
University. Murphy has been the Executive Director of “As We Grow Preschool” in
Barnstable, MA for over 30 years. She is a Peer Reviewer for the NAEYC Early
Childhood Associate Degree Accreditation system. Her expertise includes applications
of the Reggio Emilia Approach, and her doctoral work is in creating Communities of
Practice using the Teacher Research methodology. Participants included CD faculty,
Lab Center directors and teachers, as well as CCC Practicum students and one
graduate student from Erikson Institute. Presentation content included contextualization
of teacher research within a constructivist perspective, an overview of the Reggio Emilia
approach to early childhood education, orientation to reflective practices, as well as
methodological approaches for developing research questions, collecting data and
documentation, and interpreting and implementing findings. Associated activities gave
participants the opportunity to develop potential teacher research projects.
Further professional development focused providing an orientation to teacher
research for the teachers and directors in the Lab Centers. These events, also
convened by Carrie Nepstad and led by consultant Debra Murphy, took place at each
Lab Center of the District (Malcolm X College on 3 March 2010, Kennedy-King College
on 4 March, and at Olive Harvey and Daley Colleges on 5 March; and on 16 April at
Truman College, with a follow-up visit to Daley the same day. Another event that
7
focused on the Reggio approach and reflective practices, as well as the use of
technology in documentation, took place at Malcolm X College on April 15 2010.
Ethics/Oversight Strategies
The event, which took place on 7 May, 2010 at Erikson Institute, was intended to
engage faculty and lab center staff in practices around the topics of professional ethics
and of oversight in the academic programs. Presenter Nancy Freeman Ph.D. is an
Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of South Carolina.
Freeman co-wrote “Ethics and the Early Childhood Educator: Using the NAEYC Code of
Ethics” 1999 and 2005. Freeman co-presented with colleague Sherry King who is the
Director of the USC Children’s Center which serves as a lab school for ECE students.
Child Development faculty and Lab Center teachers and directors participated in this
event. Nancy Freeman’s presentation/practicum focused on how to use the National
Association for the Education of Young Children’s Code of Ethical Conduct to guide
professional practice and teacher research. King presented strategies in place at USC
that familiarize students with professional protocols and procedures as they take part in
their practicum in classroom settings.
CCCECE Newsletter
23 editions of the CCCECE newsletter have been distributed since September 2009.
The newsletter is disseminated to all full-time and adjunct faculties in the Child
Development programs throughout City Colleges, Lab center directors, teachers, and
staff, campus and District Administration, as well as Academic Advisory Councils, and
other members of the field of Early Childhood Education in the city of Chicago as well
as surrounding areas and outside the state. Newsletter topics include updates about
projects within CCC Child Development as well as issues and events in the greater ECE
field. In addition to direct e-mail, the CCCECE newsletter has been a primary method of
communication within the CCCECE community.
Teacher Research Projects
Teacher research initiatives unfolded within the contexts of several areas. In the
academic program, Harold Washington College faculty member Carrie Nepstad
assigned students the teacher research project presented in Appendix D. The project
presented in Appendix E, by Malcolm X College faculty member William O’Donnell,
sought to integrate the academic program practicum students with activities in the lab
center in a nature exploration. Appendix F presents a teacher research project by Daley
8
College Lab Center lead teacher Irma Ortega that explored a challenging situation
between two children within a lab center classroom.
Conferences
American Educational Research Association Annual Conference (30 April-4 May,
2010, Denver, Colorado)
Presentations attended included topics of self-study in student teaching, social
justice in education, a case study in social epidemiology in youth, action research
in teaching, and new technologies for documentation.
ECE Professional Development/Networking event included the ECE Special
Interest Group meeting.
The University of San Diego School of Leadership and Education Sciences
Action Research Conference (13-14 May 2011)
Presentations topics included collaborative action research, current and
emerging constructs of the meaning of education in global contexts, the interface
of Japanese cultural constructs within U.S. educational contexts, and case
studies in developing a faculty inquiry group.
Carrie Nepstad and Lynne Sabas made a poster presentation, which was
accompanied by a handout on the CCCCDP project, “Cultivating Communities of
Practice in the Child Development Programs of the City Colleges of Chicago.”
Components of the poster presentation are in Appendices D-F.
Jennifer Asimow, in partnership with Cathy Main from UIC and Kathleen
Sheridan from NLU: “Developing and Supporting Effective Early Childhood
Teachers Online: What our Research Tells Us” presented at the NAEYC National
Institute for Early Childhood Professional Development in Providence, RI.
http://preparingeceteachers.weebly.com/
Carrie Nepstad, in partnership with Ben Mardell from Lesley University in
Cambridge Massachusetts, and Debra Murphy from Cape Cod Community
College. “ACCESS to Shared Knowledge and Practices Keynote: Creating and
assessing powerful experiences in early childhood classrooms”.
Self-Study Survey
In order to explore various aspects of the programs’ cultures (for example,
perceptions roles and norms in programs), a pilot self-study instrument (Appendix G)
was adapted from a survey by Hyson et al. (2009). Additional possible data gathering
instruments for future self-study could include structured and open-ended interviews,
and participant observation. The survey may also be adapted for data gathering from
Child Development faculty and administrators, and from practicum students. This tool
may be used
9
to promote a clearer understanding of aspects of the current program culture
through the perceptions of the groups of participants.
to develop a perspective on changes that could initiate more integrated
communities of practice within the CCC Child Development Program and Lab
Centers.
to establish a starting point for comparative longitudinal data sets that may be
gathered in the future in order to describe change over time.
to provide a forum for reflection among the shareholders of the responding
group.
Curriculum Work
This work began as a continuation of the curriculum revision work that had been
done prior to this grant cycle. The ten core courses were reviewed and revised in fall
2009 by a District-wide Child Development Curriculum Committee with representation
from each campus and Carrie Nepstad as the Chair. In 2010 when the National
Association for the Education of Young Children announced the revision of the
Professional Preparation Standards it was decided that the CCC Child Development
course objectives and student learning outcomes needed further revision in order to
reflect the revised standards. During the 2010-2011 academic year, as part of the
CCCECE reflection on field placements, the Curriculum Committee reviewed and
revised all required field hours for the AAS degree.
Resource library and AV equipment
Each campus now has an updated resource library with DVDs, CD ROMs and
books that support ongoing interest in positive guidance strategies, building learning
communities, the Reggio Emilia Approach, supporting children who exhibit challenging
behaviors, communicating with families, and ECE content areas. These materials will be
used in the adult classrooms for the academic program and in the training rooms of the
lab centers and will serve as long-term resources for the entire community. In addition
to building the resource libraries for each campus, document scanners and digital
cameras were purchased for each academic program and lab center in order to further
the reflective work described in this project including documentation techniques such as
scanning student work and creating digital portfolios for young children and also for
Child Development students in the academic programs.
Conclusions and Outcomes/Recommendations
Case studies of programs similar to those of CCCECE programs show that lack
of time, as well as institutional structures, can be seen as significant barriers to
participation in CoPs. Our delimited self-study corroborated the negative effects of these
10
factors on lab center teachers. Case studies suggested that programs that support
collaborative activities (such as structuring schedules to include time for collaborative
activities), and that not only encourage but also reward teacher collaboration offer
greater benefits for the stakeholders. For our study, therefore the time organization and
character of workloads in programs, as well as institutionally mandated changes, may
be identified as significant elements to be considered in terms of strengthening the
programs. In addition, case studies showed that advocacy at all levels of the institutional
system is an essential measure for developing CoPs, as well as cultivating
reflectiveness among all stakeholders in order to facilitate comfort with change and
trust-building.
Taking into account what was learned from the case studies, we concluded that
we could plant seeds in terms of practice for making learning visible and making voices
heard by means of
cultivating reflective practices
using reflective practices to promote trust relationships among the stakeholders
developing and supporting teacher research
Further questions for implementation of what we have learned are
How can reflective practices and teacher research are integrated into the
programs? How will these changes be implemented
o At the time of initialization?
o Over the long term (taking into consideration anticipated and unanticipated
changes)?
How will the efficacy of the changes be tracked?
How long will the initial implementation period be, and what sort of follow-up will
take place at the end of the period in order to make recommendations for further
projects?
Our study provided strong evidence for teacher inquiry as a way to creatively
synthesize the contributions of all members of the Community of Practice that this
project sought to cultivate. We feel that reflective practices and teacher research work
together in synthesis as seeds to germinate this cultivation. By continued support of
reflection by means of the survey piloted in our study, and by encouraging new teacher
research projects, it will be possible to better integrate the shareholders’ endeavors for
the City Colleges of Chicago Early Childhood Education programs.
Appendix A: Contextualization–Aristotle’s Categories of Human Activity
Category of
ACTION
THEORY KNOWLEDGE ACTIVITIES
PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITY
(POIESIS)
PRACTICAL ACTIVITY
(PRAXIS)
Key
characteristics
Separated from
Practical and productive
life of the polis:
o the life of individuals
in society
o the realms of
morality
ethics
political life
education
Under the firm control of an objective, impersonal
method
Has to do with making or fabrication
Knowledge required for (or that governs) this
activity is separable from the user of that
knowledge
Participation is by volition and involves duration
Form of activity that has to do with the conduct of one’s
life/affairs as a member of society
About doing the right thing & doing it well in interactions
w/fellow humans.
Aim (end) of activity is realized in the doing.
Participation cannot be set aside at will
Concerned with
o the timely
o the local
o the particular
o the contingent
Requisite
knowledge
? TECHNE- craftsmanship:
Kind of knowledge possessed by an expert in a
specialized craft- a person who understands the
principles underlying an object or a state of
affairs (e.g., a house, a table, a safe journey, a
state of being healthy.
Materials and tools (including methods) = means
used by maker to bring about the ends
(product/result). Techne = means
PHRONESIS – neither an exclusively technical nor
cognitive capacity, but bound up w/ the kind of person one
is and is becoming.
Acquired moral-practical knowledge about how to live
rightly
Deployed in one’s interactions w/ fellow humans
Demands intellectual and moral disposition toward right
living & the pursuit of human good
Referred to as deliberative excellence, practical
wisdom/reason; assoc. cognitive virtues: understanding,
judgment, interpretation
Intended
outcome or
aim
To yield knowledge of
necessary and eternal
truths; such knowledge is
not possible in the polis
because of its inherently
changeable and uncertain
nature
Product or result that is separable from the one
who produces
Doing good by means of being and becoming
Adapted from Schwandt, Thomas A. Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry (2nd ed), p 206-208.
12
Appendix B: Cultivating Communities of Practice – Literature
Review by Lynne Sabas, Ph.D. (Research Consultant)
The objective of the literature review was to discover studies that would serve as
contextualizing knowledge for the project. Basic research questions that oriented our
search were
What are some models, strategies, practices, self-studies or action research
within academic contexts similar to the City Colleges of Chicago Child
Development programs that can be discovered in the case-study literature?
How are knowledge and practice developed and shared in Communities of
Practice (CoPs)/ Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)?
How can our programs make use of models, practices, and other approaches
developed within these communities?
Strategies, Process, Challenges, and Outcomes
The literature search was initiated from an interdisciplinary approach, and
therefore the search was guided by the perspective that the Child Development
Programs at CCC are cultures, and that the literature could yield some contextualization
and insights for implementing the project by means of that perspective. The initial
intention of the review was to locate case studies of similar research projects in
programs similar to that of CCC, and to compare and contrast these studies to create
models of possible approaches to the CCC project.
The literature review sought to provide evidence for one of our assumptions for
the project: the importance of cultivating CoPs to support the goals of the project, and to
delineate the essential role in terms of this cultivation of reflective practices in concert
with teacher inquiry. In addition, it looked for some models and tools of investigation for
use on our project.
The first task was to locate the project in a broader context by reviewing The
Early Childhood Program Standards established by the National Association for the
Education of Young Children, as well as other information provided by the organization
("Overview of the NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards," 2008) This website
also provided a directory of NAEYC accredited programs. The program literature and
newsletters from the Child Development Program of Harold Washington College of
CCC, and consultations with faculty member Carrie Nepstad also supported
contextualizing the project.
Strategies for the review of the literature sent it into three directions. Websites of
NAEYC-accredited programs that seemed similar to CCCs program (Certificate and
Associate Degrees, urban, multiple sites) were surveyed, with the objective of seeking
reports of institutionally sponsored research projects that could be case studies.
13
Another direction pursued was a traditional aggregated database search (e.g. ERIC,
EBSCO, etc.) for full-text articles. A third direction was to scan specialized on-line
collections, such as those in Child Care & Early Education Research Connections.
The literature research process yielded useful challenges. The first strategic
direction, to seek out case studies within program websites, resulted in little material
that was applicable to the project, because website content was mainly intended as
informational sources for families and communities. The second direction, the classic
database search, revealed the immensity of publications on topics dealing with
communities of practice or learning communities in the field of Early Childhood
Development education. In addition, identification of pertinent search terms (keywords,
descriptors, and identifiers) that could focus the search often tended to the opposite
outcome in that many terms had similar meanings (e.g., student teachers, practicum
students). However, some useful literature emerged from the second strategy, as well
as the more focused and delimited collections found in the field-specific websites. In the
latter cases, it was decided not to make use of articles that were available for a fee
through subscription-only collections. Another challenge was that the case studies
found on program change were located in contexts not parallel to CCCs program, for
example, in K-12 practicum settings, or in programs outside of the U.S.
As the literature review developed, combinations of several key subject search
term yielded the most useful results; these were: child development education, action
research, and communities of practice. The search found evidence of a shift in how
subject categories assigned to literature between 1999 and 2010. For example, a
search of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) database for the period
1999-2000 yielded 1,961 hits for the subject search term “action research,” 595 for the
term “learning community,” and 39 for “communities of practice.” A similar search for the
period 2001-2010 yielded 2,123 for “action research,” 659 for “learning community,” and
377 for “communities of practice.” This may indicate that the term “communities of
practice,” with its implications of plurality, may be gaining purchase over the more
monolithic notion of “learning community.”
In order to understand how CoPs and PLCs are structured and how they function
to support change, Blankenship and Ruona (2007) conducted a literature review and
identified three models of PLCs and three models of CoPs derived from key articles
surveyed in their review. Categories of comparison included: theory base, membership,
leadership, organizational culture, and knowledge sharing. PLCs were seen to
consistently draw from learning organizational theory, while CoPs were more eclectic,
drawing from situated cognition, knowledge management theory, or social learning
theory.
Membership varied among the models; participation could be voluntary,
mandated, or a condition of employment status. It is notable that CoPs tend to delimit
membership to a group of individuals working together for a common purpose within the
14
organization, while in the case of PLCs the community tended to be defined as the
entire organization, and therefore the membership tended to be more institution-
focused, rather than purpose-focused.
Leadership in PLCs tended to be externally stronger when compared with CoPs,
emerging from managers or principals. CoP leadership was more varied, informal,
egalitarian, and distributed. Leadership could be situated both within and without the
community. Organizational culture among the models emphasized shared vision, trust,
and collaboration. These aspects could be either explicit or implicit. Blankenship and
Ruona state that “(c)ulture and norms are major determinants of the extent to which
knowledge creation and organizational learning can occur” (2007, n.p.). Knowledge
sharing among the models tended to take place in terms of formal structures, such as
team meetings, reflective dialogues, and the application of protocols or located
collaborations such as on-line groups. The authors point out that the models they
investigated do not indicate whether knowledge development extended from the group
into the larger organization.
Blankenship and Ruona point out that their literature review revealed that PLCs
tended to place emphasis on leadership and the larger institutional setting of the group.
CoPs, on the other hand, tended to stress the social features of learning in the
development of new knowledge, with less attention paid to leadership or culture outside
of the community.
Knowledge development within PLCs and CoPs also vary in focus. PLC models
tended to place emphasis on formal structures or protocols, such as teams or peer-
coaching situations, in order to share knowledge both within and outside of the group;
CoPs tended to focus on knowledge sharing within the community, with less emphasis
on the larger institutional context. Based on their literature review, Blankenship and
Ruona identify a difference between PLCs and CoPs in terms of focus. PLC models
tend to give importance to institutional elements and organization, and leadership. CoP
models tended to focus on improvement of practices within the group.
The salient aspects of CoP/PLC models identified by Blankenship and Ruona,
with the exception of theoretical grounding, serve as an organizational device to discuss
other literature review in this project. The aspects of membership and leadership are
included as relational roles in the dynamic of community building. The concepts of
institutional and program culture will be elaborated by means of additional literature, as
well as knowledge and practice in terms of collaboration within and beyond groups
Another critical aspect of program culture has to do with the how the program
negotiates change initiated from outside of the program itself; for example, as a result of
institutionally mandated accreditation issues, or policy changes, or changes in program
structure or personnel, and the relationship between these negotiations and CoPs.
Although the CoPs in Gallucci’s study (2003) were elementary school teachers in
changing districts, the research yields some useful insights into how CoPs deal with
15
standards-based reform. Galluci conceptualizes the CoP as “the locus of (a)
engagement in the actions of teaching, (b) interpersonal relations, (c) shared
knowledge, and (d) negotiation of meaning of work” (p. 4). With regard to strengthening
CoPs among teachers, the author observes that lack of time, as well as institutional
structures, were cited as significant barriers to participation in CoPs (p. 15). Conversely,
schools that provide support for collaborative activities (such as structuring schedules to
include time for collaborative activities), and that not only encourage but also reward
teacher collaboration, will benefit from the development of CoPs. Galluci’s ideas may
also be extended from teacher CoPs to program-defined CoPs that include participants
from the faculty and the practicum students, as well as administration. For our study,
therefore, the time organization of workloads in programs, as well as institutionally
mandated changes, may be identified as significant elements to be considered from an
ethnographic self-study perspective.
One more element of the ethnographic perspective is the construct of norms
within the workplace. Little’s study (1982), conducted as a focused ethnography, was
based on data in the forms of semi-structured interviews and observations in various
settings in the schools. Categories of collegial work practice characteristics were
developed from an inventory of work practices gained from the data. These categories
were: range of interactions, location of interactions, frequency, focus and concreteness,
relevance, and reciprocity. The study incorporates characteristics of participants (status,
knowledge and skill, and social or role competence) as key factors in developing norms
of collegiality. Another factor considered by the study was the role of expectations with
regard to both norms of collegiality and for norms of continuous improvement in the
workplace. When supported by actual experience, norms failed to coalesce to support
the development of cohesive CoPs. This observation will help to bring attention to
similar dynamics of stated vs. actual norms that may be a salient component of our self-
study.
A key area of concern in our project is integration between the academic
component and the lab component of the Child Development Programs at CCC.
Stremmel et al. (2003) present a case study of re-envisioning their laboratory school as
a collaborative community based on research and teaching. The program that served as
a case study for the research, Virginia Tech Child Development Lab School, differs from
the CCC program in that lab school teachers in the Virginia Tech program are graduate
students; however, the study nevertheless provides some useful observations on the
role of teacher research. This study described the process of change, which the authors
identify as a paradigm shift, which was intended to form stronger connection between
working with theory in the academic aspect of their program and teacher preparation in
the lab aspect. This paradigm shift was guided by a social constructivist perspective
inspired by the Reggio Emilia Approach, and looked to cultivate a CoP that included
teachers as researchers, as well as shared leadership. A practicum course, initially
16
designed to focus on developing student teacher skills, such as communication and
time and classroom management and supervision, evolved toward an inquiry-based
model that sought to generate new knowledge. This new knowledge emerged from an
action research project, which involved a process of developing a research question
(theorizing), making use of methods of discovering possible answers to the question
(researching), and considering the project as a model for developing curriculum
(reflection). A significant outcome of the research projects was that it brought together
faculty, lead teachers, practicum students, and administrators in a collaborative inquiry.
The presentations and teacher talks that emerged led the authors to adapt the position
in their program “…that research was something that teachers do as part of their
program. Thus, teaching is seen more than action and activity, it is also reflection and
speculation” (2003, p. 102).
An additional important aspect of Stremmel et al’s study is the reconfiguration of
staff to promote a shared leadership. In this aspect, the paradigm shift involved moving
away from the traditional leadership model as a top-down, hierarchical model and
toward a collaborative model. This model of shared leadership included shared
responsibility for six areas identified by a group of faculty, teachers, and administrators.
These areas were administration, research, curriculum, professional learning, outreach,
and creating community. In keeping with the Reggio approach, the CoP developed in
this program sought to include interactive partnerships among faculty, teachers,
students, parents and children (2003, p. 108).
Cutler et al. (2009) describe a similar paradigm shift within the early childhood
education program and laboratory school at South Dakota State University over a
period of seven years. The authors formed an inquiry group in which to reflect on the
changes that had taken place, and to identify trends within the process. These trends
were “(a) recasting the image of the teacher and reevaluating the process of teaching
and learning, (b) valuing dialogue, (c) cultivating a reflective mindset, (d) valuing outside
perspectives, and (e) building meaningful relationships” (p. 404). This reshaping of the
program involved a transition from a more conventional technical approach (intended to
equip prospective teachers with skill sets and strategies) toward an inquiry–based
approach, inspired by the Reggio approach, emerging from reflective practices,
whereby students would be able to engage in ongoing learning from their teaching.
The authors discovered that recasting the image of the teacher involved
gradually moving away from the dualistic notion that there is a right and a wrong way to
teach, and toward an understanding of the role of teacher as not the locus of authority
but as the facilitator of questions. This shift also involved modifying the traditional model
of education as the acquisition of knowledge in the form of content/subject matter
toward a focus on the learner and her or his process of construction (p. 407).
A refashioned model of teacher image was supported by a move toward valuing
a dialogic mode within the CoP, shifting the character of the questions about practice
17
from “Why?” to “How?” The researchers utilized a method of discourse developed by
Brown and Isaacs (2005), the World Café technique, which facilitates discourse among
participants of different perspectives. This technique encouraged equitable involvement
among faculty and students in discourse that challenged and opened perspectives,
allowing for cross-pollination that would create spaces in which ideas could grow
beyond those originating with an individual participant (Cutler, et al., p. 411).
Cultivating a more reflective mindset also served to change the mindset of
teaching “the right way” and to establish a more experimental perspective. Cutler et al.
describe the uncertainty that students first expressed when they were encouraged to
include written reflection into assignments and classroom activities that included the use
of the first person, which is often regarded in traditional academia as unscholarly.
Faculty also had difficulty with a shift in orientation toward reflective practices. The
authors acknowledge, in keeping with findings of Senge et al. (1999), that “deep
changes in how individuals think cannot be achieved through compliance; they must be
individually chosen as a value in order to see visible change” (p. 412). In addition,
faculty noted that the daily responsibilities of teaching left little time available for
reflection (p. 412). The issue of cultivating a more reflective mindset was implemented
by incorporating journaling and building established time for collaborative discussion
into the weekly schedule.
The authors invited five professionals who use Reggio-inspired practices to visit
their program, in order to incorporate perspectives from outside of their program.
Among the practices offered by these professionals were: proposing provocations that
surprised the teaching team because these were not negatively (as expected by the
team), but positively framed, and a workshop on the use of “thick documentation” in
order to construct a richer, more multivalent, portrayal of teaching/learning situations.
The fifth significant trend in program change identified by Cutler et al. is building
relationships. This trend was seen as an outcome brought about by the four other
trends in the discussion groups, participants reflected on hierarchical and democratic
characteristics of thinking and came to three understandings. These were: first, that
advocacy at all levels of the institutional system is an essential measure for developing
a new identity within the larger institutional context; and, second, that cultivating
dialogue among faculty has created openness to new ideas. The third understanding
had to do with the acculturation of students, which established a hierarchical model in
higher education as a norm. As faculty themselves adapted to initial feelings of
discomfort with reflectiveness and resulting transparency, students in turn were able to
begin to adapt to new norms in how they regarded the education process. This in turn
led to heightened levels of trust among all participants (pp. 414-415).
Cutler et al. conclude by pointing out that a key element gained from their
experience with program change is a heightened sense of comfort with change itself.
They have learned to acknowledge that there is no point of “arrival” in the evolution of
18
teaching practices; instead, it is cyclic- as new students joint in the process, they in turn
become contributing participants in the process of teaching and learning (pp. 414-415).
In addition to articles, several recently published books were included in the
literature review. Collaborative Action Research: Developing Professional Learning
Communities (2008), a collection of articles edited by Stephen P. Gordon, identifies the
primary partnership relationship between the university and of the school and each
article explores an aspect of these roles. Although the school setting in this collection is
a K-12 case study in Texas State University’s School Improvement Network and
therefore outside of the early child education context of the CCC programs, several
articles nevertheless offer useful directions for developing this relationship, in that
institutional culture is included as a critical factor.
Another volume, The Reflective Educator’s Guide to Classroom Research:
Learning to Teach and Teaching to Learn through Practitioner Inquiry (Dana & Yendol-
Hoppey, 2009), offers further support to the role of teachers as researchers in the
communities of practice paradigm. The authors take a hands-on approach to the
process of teacher research, offering specific but flexible strategies for teacher research
projects.
Conclusions and Implications/Applications of the Literature Review for the Project
The literature review provided supportive corroboration of our assumptions for
the project: the importance of cultivating CoPs, and the essential role of reflective
practices in this cultivation and in teacher research. In addition, it provided some models
and a tool for reflection and inquiry for use in our project.
A key theme emerging from the literature on aspects of CoPs is the concept of
reflectiveness. Borgia and Schuler define reflective practice as “the mindful review of
one's actions specifically, one's professional actions… [which] requires concentration
and careful consideration as teachers seek patterns and relationships that will generate
meaning within the investigation” (1996). Gordon states that “(r)eflection is a critical
aspect of education on many different levels” (2008, p. xi). Dana and Yendol-Hoppey
extend the notion of reflection into teacher inquiry: “Teacher inquiry invites intentional,
planned reflection heightening your focus on problem posing” (2007, p. 7).
A second key theme is the role of cultivating reflective discourse among all
participants associated with the program: faculty, laboratory teachers, practicum
students, directors and other administrators, children, and families. Finally, there is a
consensus that the inclusion of teacher research as an intrinsic program component is
an effective mode for developing reflective practices, generating new knowledge, and
sustaining collaboration among all participants in the community.
19
References
Blankenship, S. S., & Ruona, W. E. A. (2007). Professional Learning Communities and
Communities of Practice: A Comparison of Models, Literature Review. Paper
presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International
Research Conference in The Americas.
Borgia, E. T. & Schuler, D. (1996). Action Research in Early Childhood Education. ERIC
Digest, ERIC Identifier ED401047
Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The World Café : shaping our futures through
conversations that matter (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Cutler, K. M., Gilkerson, D., Bowne, M., & Stremmel, A. (2009). Change within a
Teacher Education Program and Laboratory: A Reflective Commentary. Journal
of Early Childhood Education, 30, 404-417.
Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). The reflective educator's guide to classroom
research : learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Gallucci, C. (2003). Theorizing About Teachers' Responses to Reform: The ROle of
Communities of Practice. An Occasional Paper. Seattle, WA.: Center for the
Study of Teaching and Policy.
Gordon, S. P. (2008). Collaborative action research : developing professional learning
communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hyson, M., Tomlinson, H. B., & Morris, C. A. S. (2009). Quality Improvement in Early
Childhood Teacher Education: Faculty Perspectives and Recommendations for
the Future. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 11(1).
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of Collegiality and Experimentation: Workplace Conditions of
Social Success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3).
Overview of the NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards. (2008). from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/OverviewStandards.pdf
Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
Senge, P. M. (1999). The dance of change : the challenges of sustaining momentum in
learning organizations (1st ed.). New York: Currency/Doubleday.
Stremmel, A. J., Hill, L. T., & Fu, V. R. (2003). An Inside Perspective of Paradigm Shifts
in Child Development Laboratory Programs: Bridging Theory and Professional
Preparation. In B. A. McBride & N. E. Barbour (Eds.), Bridging the Gap between
Theory, Research and Practice: The Role of Child Development Laboratory
Programs in Early Childhood Education. (Vol. 12). Amsterdam, Boston, London:
Elsevier JAI.
20
Yendol-Hoppey, D., & Dana, N. F. (2007). The reflective educator's guide to mentoring :
strengthening practice through knowledge, story, and metaphor. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press a Sage Pub. Co.
21
Appendix C: Sample of Newsletter
First edition
City Colleges of Chicago ECE Newsletter
Building Communities of Practice September, 2009
In This Issue
Save the Date! 11/05/09
Reflective Practices
Teacher/Action Research: A
Proposal to the CCC/ECE
Community
Save the Date!
11/05/09
Professional
Development
Seminar
Teacher/Action
Research Forum
In partnership with National Louis
University's Center for Practitioner
Research & Erikson Institute
Please join us
for a stimulating
evening!
Light refreshments will be
Greetings to the CCC/ECE community!
My name is Carrie Nepstad and I am an Assistant Professor of Child
Development at Harold Washington College.
For the past several years the CCC Child Development Associate
Degree Programs and Lab Centers have been working on an ongoing
improvement project funded by the McCormick Tribune Foundation.
This initiative involved professional development for faculty as well as
lab center directors, teachers, and staff. It also involved a complete
revision of the 10-core courses in the AAS degree offered across the
District.
We are in a new stage of development with this initiative! At this
point, we are working together to review the Associate Degree
Programs as well as to review and develop policies and procedures in
our Lab Centers in order to support student learning. The goal is to
build "communities of practice" within our system so we can work
together to serve CCC students and our community of young children
and families.
This will involve 4 professional development seminars during the
2009-2010 academic year, a monthly newsletter, a curriculum review,
and a focus on Reflective Practices within the Lab Centers and the
adult classrooms. This will require all of us to think about how our
various roles serve child development students and ultimately young
children and their families.
I look forward to your ongoing input - here's to a productive year!
Carrie
PS Please forward this e-mail to your colleagues and community
partners by clicking the "forward e-mail" button below. thank you
22
provided.
Location:
Harold Washington College 30 E.
Lake Street, room 1115
Time:
6:30-8:30pm
Date:
11/05/09
Quick Links
Learning from Young
Children in the Classroom:
The Art & Science of
Teacher Research
Voices of Practitioners:
Teacher Research in Early
Childhood Education
NAEYC publication
Faculty Curriculum
Advisory Committee
Daley, JoAnn Burnside
KKC, Benita Hunter
HWC, Carrie Nepstad
MXC, William O'Donnell
Truman, Bonnie Muirhead
Human Services/CDA, Mary
Kaleta
Curriculum Consultant,
Jennifer Asimow
Please contact
Carrie Nepstad at
[email protected] or call 312-
553-6095
Reflective Practice
In speaking with Lab Center Directors
and fellow faculty within the District and
across the country, it is clear to me that
Reflective Practice is important in all
areas of our field.
In an effort to address this, the 2009-
2010 Initiative will focus on developing
reflective practices within our adult
classrooms as well as our lab centers. This is a key element of
professionalism and it is something we can all strive to engage in
ourselves and to support in others.
One method of Reflective Practice that we are going to explore in our
PD seminars and in ongoing committee-work, is Teacher/Action
Research.
You are all invited to participate in the CCC/ECE first annual book
study! The book is called Learning from Young Children: The Art and
Science of Teacher Research by Daniel R. Meir & Barbara Henderson.
You can go to the "Quick Links" in the right-hand column for the
Amazon link. I think you will find it to be a very useful resource.
Happy Reading!
Teacher/Action Research: A Proposal Let's do a
research project together!
As quoted in the NAEYC publication, Voices of Practitioners, "(i)n
Teacher Research, teachers engage in the systematic study of their
own practice. Deeply involved in the daily lives of young children and
their families, teachers provide a critical insider perspective through
publishing their investigations and reflections on life in their
classrooms".
This is a wonderful opportunity for all of us to learn a new skill
together. We can all benefit from learning the methods of teacher
research in order to learn about the growth & development of
students of all ages. It is also a useful tool for reflective supervision
within the ECE setting and for assessment practices within the adult
classroom.
I am on the Steering Committee for Voices and we are currently in the
process of exploring how Associate degree faculty can partner with
23
ECE teachers to do teacher research projects, write about them, and
submit them for publication. With our Initiative emphasis on Teacher
Research this year, I want to encourage CCC faculty, along with Lab
Center directors and teachers to work together on a teacher research
project. We could do several projects across the District on a similar
theme such as:
"How can we support diverse learners?"
What do you think? If you are interested in participating, please send
me an e-mail at [email protected]
Also, we are planning a Voices breakfast meeting at the NAEYC
conference this November in Washington, DC. If you are attending the
conference and would like to participate in the breakfast meeting with
the Voices editorial staff, please let me know right away.
Engaging in Inquiry
I recently took my CD 143 "Science
and Math for the Young Child"
students on a field trip to the Oak
Street Beach. We were working on a
long-term project about water and the
field trip was a culminating experience
where students wrote observations,
drew pictures, and took photographs
of the trip. They then prepared a
documentation panel for the classroom and a small group of students
responsible for the labs in this unit prepared a newsletter and sent it to their
classmates.
Please send me examples of your Adventures in Inquiry! [email protected]
24
Spring 2011 edition
CCCECE Newsletter
Building a Community of
Inquiry & Practice February 22, 2011
ATTENTION:
Our next Meeting is:
(new date & time)
Friday 03/18/11
10am-noon
MXC
The last meeting of
the semester is:
Friday 04/29/11
1:00-3:00pm
MXC
We had a
great
meeting
in January! I look
forward to seeing you
all in March and April.
Teacher Research
Initiative
This semester we are
trying a TR Project in the
CD 201 class "Observation
and Management of Child
Behavior". This project
was designed using the
principles learned from
Debra Murphy during our
professional development
Greetings!
I want to thank each member of the CD Curriculum Advisory
Committee. I truly appreciate their responsiveness to
requests for information and feedback on various drafts of all
revised documents. We have reviewed and revised all 10
core courses twice, and in some cases three times over the
past year. The goal has been to streamline our student
learning outcomes and more clearly align them to the
NAEYC/ECADA standards for professional preparation.
We have been proactive in revising the syllabi to include the
revised standards. Last year, I announced that the revised
standards include a 6th standard. However, the final version
of the standards now includes a 7th standard. Yes, 7!
The good news is that the 7th standard is about field
experiences, which is something the Curriculum Committee
has been working on for the past year - we were ahead of
NAEYC on this particular piece.
Please download the newly revised standards for your own records. It is important to review and to begin to think about revising your key assessments to include the updates.
25
on Teacher Research last
year. It also stems from
feedback from directors
and teachers in the field
about the need to prepare
students to work with
young children who
exhibit "difficult"
behaviors.
The assignment is a case
study of one child. After
doing several
observations in the
classroom, students select
the child for the case
study based on observed
behavior that they find
challenging in some way.
Students are cautioned
that they cannot label the
child in any way. Instead,
they must describe
observed behavior
objectively.
The goal of the TR project
is to collect data on when
& where this child is
successful in the
classroom. This is a
complete turnaround from
what many students
expect to do because it
emphasizes strengths
rather than
weaknesses.
Please take a look at the
assignment description,
and let me know what you
think.
I am interested in
feedback from Lab Center
Directors and Teachers as
well as fellow-faculty.
So far, the students are
very interested in the
assignment. I'll keep you
posted as they begin
collecting data. I've
already noticed a
difference in the way they
refer to their observations
It was nice to see everyone at our meeting in January. We
spent time reviewing the work that the Curriculum
Committee has been doing to revise the required field hours
for each course as well as the pre-requisites for the 10 core
courses.
We also reviewed the Student Resource Book that has been
distributed across the District. The feedback has been
positive from students but in conversations with each other,
it became clear to faculty in the meeting that we need to
have consistent graduation requirements for all AAS Degrees
in Child Development offered across the District, and that
this will be a focus for our continued work this semester.
We will not be meeting on February 25th as I will be at the
State ACCESS meeting in Bloomington-Normal.
I look forward to seeing you March 18, 10am-12pm at MXC.
take care, Carrie
Professional Development Survey Results
Last semester, I sent out a survey to see what professional development topics are of most interest
to you. There were 7 respondents. The Results:
71.4% chose "Play" as the number one answer Second place was a 3-way tie between: Technology
Classroom Management Stress & Trauma
To share: I've been reviewing a textbook called
"Play at the Center of the Curriculum, 5th edition" by Van Hoorn, Nourot, Scales, and Alward. It is a Pearson textbook. I don't see an exact fit to
any courses I personally teach, but it has been a useful resource for designing lessons and
assignments on play. Also, I was looking through some materials for a class the other day and came across a book from my
graduate studies, "Play in the Lives of Children" by C. S. Rogers
and J.K. Sawyers. It is a NAEYC publication and I have the 1988 edition so it's a classic! I have really
26
- something seems to
change in their attitudes
when they begin to think
of themselves as teacher
researchers.
Stay Tuned!
Associate Degree Early
Childhood Teacher
Educators: ACCESS To
Shared Knowledge &
Practices
ACCESS is the Specialized
Professional Association
for Associate Degree
faculty in Early Childhood
Education.
Attention Faculty:
if you are interested in
joining ACCESS, or if you
haven't yet renewed your
membership for 2011,
please send me your
completed application
form.
*The grant will pay for the
membership fee for this
year.
found it to be useful and worth going back to when
planning lectures/class activities on play. Do you have resources to share?
Please send me an e-mail [email protected]
Announcement:
Jan Stepto-Millett has resigned from CCC.
Carrie Nepstad will serve as Manager of the McCormick
grant until the grant cycle ends June 30, 2011
Faculty Curriculum
Advisory Committee
Daley, JoAnn Burnside
KKC, JoLynn McCray
HWC, Jennifer Asimow
MXC, William O'Donnell
Truman, Bonnie Muirhead
OHC, Kate Connor
Carrie Nepstad Project Manager
312-553-6095
27
Appendix D: Teacher Research Project for Academic Program
Students – Case Study Strategy by Carrie Nepstad, M.S. (HWC)
Question: When and where does this child exhibit positive, appropriate
behavior(s)?
Sub-questions: What is the child interested in? What engages him/her (materials,
activities)? What staff does the child connect with? What children does the child
make productive contact with? When is the child relaxed? When is the child
smiling? When is the child successfully communicating with others?
Data Collection:
o Classroom Maps: Make a classroom map
template and make several copies and attach to
a clipboard. Make sure it has a place for the
date and time, a place for comments, and
includes all major areas of the classroom. Use
a green marker or sticky dots to indicate
wherein the classroom you observe positive
behavior of the child. Jot down the time by each
mark. Collect data a day at a time for each
map. Collect at least two maps over a three
week period, but three or four maps a week will
give you more data.
o Photograph documentation: Take photographs
of the child in positive play and engagement
whenever you can, but strive to get at least five photographs a week over at
least three weeks. Try to jot down notes (anecdotal records) for each
photograph as soon as you can after taking the picture. Sticky notes work well
for this.
o Detailed observations: Record as much as you can about any positive
engagement of the child whenever you see it, no matter how short the
duration. What does he/she
say/ do? Who else is involved?
What are they doing? What are
the positive aspects of the
target child’s behaviors?
o Reflections: Gather, display,
and discuss your collected data
once a week, with at least one
colleague if possible (note: it
28
does not have to be someone who works with the child). What do you notice?
What trends do you see? Record your reflections, noting what data supports
your findings.
Conclusions and Next-Steps: Assemble and organize your data for display in a
notebook, folder, poster board, power point, or report. Write at least one
paragraph about what you have learned in regard to your question and sub-
questions. How will you use this information to strengthen this child’s
opportunities for success in your classroom? How could this information be
helpful to the child’s family? Create an action plan that involves expanding the
aspects of your program that support this
child’s development. Involve as many of
your colleagues as possible in this process.
Share your data and findings with your
colleagues. Record feedback and any new
ideas generated in your discussion.
29
Appendix E: Teacher Research Project – Jump, Frog, Jump by
William O'Donnell, M.S. (MXC)
Narrative Description
This project came about as a collaboration between Ms. Sofia Pekar, the lead teacher
at the Child Development Lab Center, and I. We were brainstorming for ways we could
integrate our two programs. We wanted to find "common ground" for both her children
in the Lab Center and my adult students in the college program. We'd been creating
different learning opportunities and doing projects together for a while, but we wanted to
do something bigger and over a longer time line as a way of building a learning
community. So, we decided on frogs. Why? Sofia had planned on doing an extended
literacy lesson based on the book Jump, Frog, Jump and in my CD 143 -- Math and
Science for Young Children course we had undertaken in-depth, integrated curriculum
studies about butterflies and fish in the past and were looking for our next study. So we
decided to both study frogs and share our work/study/documentation with each other.
We both collected picture books, non-fiction books, and periodicals about frogs for the
students and children to use during the month-long
study. College students came into the classroom
and read selected books. We bought tadpoles and
began the life-cycle study, observing
and documenting the changes taking place (very
slow metamorphosis). Both groups learned songs
about frogs like "Five Green and Speckled Frogs".
Gross motor activities like leap frog were
introduced. Play frogs were used as manipulatives
for counting and sorting. Lily pads were we placed
in the water table. Arts and crafts activities about
frogs. And at the center was the book, Jump Frog, Jump. The teachers and children
read the book a lot. Daily. And they were learning the sequence of the story and
making their own fold-out books.
It was all prelude to the play the children
performed during the Week of the Young Child,
aptly titled, "Jump Frog, Jump". The college
students created the set for the play and helped
with costumes. They acted as ushers for the
30
play. The children's parents were invited as well as people from the college. It went
beautifully.
This project really benefitted the teachers, students, and children. The students got
valuable experience working with an
integrated curriculum and saw
its direct application in an early
childhood classroom. The teachers in
the lab center benefitted from
having the college program contribute
ideas and develop the on-
going curriculum. I, the college
teacher, got the opportunity to be back
in the EC classroom again and
constructively apply a course to real-
life work with children, as well as
collaborate with the classroom
teacher. The children got to interact with students and teachers outside their
classroom, who brought experiences that
otherwise, would not have happened.
31
Appendix F: Teacher Research Project –Teacher Research; What
Is It? by Irma Ortega, M.A. (Daley College)
Narrative Description
Teacher research is a process, which allows you to develop knowledge or
understanding of something in the classroom that you want to change. Teachers may
want to change for example children's aggressive behavior, but in order to do that you
must take several steps in order to achieve what you want to change.
When I was approached with this project last year, I felt confident that I could do this.
First I had to have a question for my research, I immediately thought of a situation that
was escalating in the room between two boys who were being aggressive with each
other. This problem made me feel frustrated, and the whole situation became more
complicated when a parent of one of the boys was becoming involved in the situation
which was making things more problematic in the classroom. However I also wanted to
prove to the parents what my concerns were for one of the boys in terms of his fine
motor skills and how we could help him become more proficient in his writing ability.
First I had to come up with a hypothesis and a question as well as a conclusion.
My research question was, "How can I change this aggression between the boys and at
the same time change the parent's perception about the other child?” I hear everyday in
the room, Johnny is a bad boy and I would respond because this was not true.
For this teacher research I chose to collect data by writing anecdotal notes everyday
and also creating a classroom map of all the learning areas. The purpose of this was to
track where the behavior was occurring.
I had to use three different colored
markers to track the incidents, which
were color-coded in order to be able to
see where the aggression was
happening and what time of the day it
was happening. By implementing these
methods of observation and gathering
pieces of evidence, I was able to see
where the incidents were occurring most
often. This helped me to plan on making
changes between the two boys. I used
pictures to show and document the
32
change over the eight week period. I also saved writing samples of the child's writing
which I shared during the Parent Teacher Conference with the family.
Along the way, I talked with Debra Murphy [Cape Cod Community College, consultant
for the CDPCCC project] and she suggested that I focus on when the one boy was
successful in the classroom rather than focusing on when the aggression occurs. This
changed my perception of the child.
I used all this quantitative information that I gathered to plan, and make changes based
on what was happening. I was able to also to provide positive outcomes when the time
was done. It was a successful process
because the problem was not apparent
anymore between the boys.
From all these findings and the
information I was able to gain knowledge
and understanding and apply it in
another setting with other situations.
33
Appendix G: Survey – City Colleges of Chicago Child Development
Lab Center Research Project
Will you please help us to understand your current experience at your site?
All responses are confidential.
Please read the following descriptions. Which mode(s) best reflects your current
experience at your site? Please place a checkmark next to it/them.
_ Change mode: “We are responding to new external requirements.”
_ Implementation or maintenance mode: “We are putting into practice what we have
developed.”
_ Survival mode: “We are barely keeping our heads above water in terms of our
responsibilities.”
_ Fatigue mode: “We are too tired or overwhelmed to think about innovation or
improvements.”
_ Conflict mode: “Energy is mostly going into interpersonal conflicts or issues about
who is responsible for what.”
_ Building mode: “We are able to invest time and energy in improving our program.”
_ Celebration mode: “We feel our quality improvement efforts are getting results and
we are energized to do more.”
(adapted from Hyson, et al., 2009)
Please give some details or additional information that will help us to understand your
experience of this mode.