GATEways 2000 (Volume 13 Issue 1)

.

GATEways to Teacher Education

The Journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

published by GATE and Berry College

Volume XIII (1) Fall2000

Editors Jacqueline M. McDowell, Berry College Kathy R. Gann, Berry College

. Officers of the Association President: Maryellen S. Cosgrove, Annstrong Atlantic State University President Elect: Jennifer S. Harrison, LaGrange College Past President: Sam Hausfather, Berry College Secretary: Gwen Middlebrooks, Spelman College Treasurer: Jackie Castleman Executive Secretary: Eugene Bales

Editorial Board Julia Donniney, Georgia Southwestern (GA) Wade Carpenter, Berry College (GA) April Whatley, University of New Orleans (LA) Diane Willey, Kennesaw State University (GA)

GATEways to Teaeber Education 1

From the Editor

Three manuscripts in this issue of GATEways Journal describe research studies which focus on student teachers in Georgia Teacher Education programs. The fourth article approaches cooperative learning strategies through a unique view of education and teacher education literature.

In the manuscript "Student Teachers, Perceptions of their Preparedness for Classroom Management," Mary Clement conducted a study to ascertain the classroom management needs of student teachers. A survey was designed to provide insight into current student teachers' perceptions of their preparedness for classroom management, their preparedness and confidence to build positive management in their first classrooms, and the management problems they encountered during student teaching. Results of the study indicated that a course in classroom management should be offered just prior or during the student teaching experience. A course is being developed as a result of this study.

Professors Mikki Garcia and Cheryl McFadden discuss the results of a pilot study to determine effective classroom management practices in the Savannah-Chatham County Public Schools. Their survey, included as an appendix, indicated three essential topics for a course in classroom management that include interacting with parents, behavior management strategies and techniques, and issues related to diversity in the classroom. The authors make seven recommendations derived from the results of their survey which will help to increase better classroom management in elementary schools.

Six authors collaborated on the manuscript, "One Hundred TwentyThree Student Teachers: Common Fears and Possible Interventions." Drs. VanBrackle, Bellon, Poole, McHaney, VanBrackle, and Michael used both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies to identify various patterns of sources of frustrations and types of coping mechanisms used by student teachers.

Finally, Professor VanZile-Tam sen discusses cooperative learning, a common theme in teacher education. She ties her discussion to the INTASC Standards, cognitive learning theory, motivation theory, and social learning theory. She offers practical suggestions for structuring cooperative learning which will encourage teacher educators to be good role models for the preservice teachers they teach.

l GATEways Volume XIII (I) Fall2000 Teacher Education

GATEways to Teacher Education

- Volume XIII (1) Fa112000

Table of Contents

Student Teachers' Perceptions of their Preparedness for Classroom Management .......................... 5 Mary C. Clement Berry College

Classroom Management in our Schools: A Study of the Savannah-Chatham County Elementary ••••••.......... 17 Schools Mikki Garcia and Chery 1 McFadden Armstrong Atlantic State University

One Hundred Twenty-Three Student Teachers: Common Fears and Possible Interventions ...•..•••••••.••••...... 37 Anita S. V anBrackle, Kennesaw State University Toni Bellon, North Georgia College and State University Jonelle Polle, Gettysburg College Jane McHaney, Kennesaw State University Lewis V anBrackle, Kennesaw State University · Bob Michael, North Georgia College and State University

Successful Cooperative Learning Strategies for Teacher Educators .................................................................. 55 Carol VanZile-Tamsen State University of West Georgia

GATEways to Teacher Education 3

4 GATEways Volume XIII (I) Fall 2000 Teacher Education

Student Teachers' Perceptions of their :rreparedness · for Classroom Management

Mary C. Clement

Abstract

This study was conducted to ascertain the classroom management needs of student teachers in order to design a new course in classroom management. Eighty-three student teachers evaluated their preparation for dealing with classroom management issues. Their preparation came from college coursework, a seminar during the student teaching semester, and help received from their cooperating teachers. The student teachers rated how well they perceived their classroom management skills worked in student teaching and their confidence to manage their first classrooms independently. They were also asked to write about how their teacher education program could have prepared them better for the realities of classroom management. The strongest recommendation of the student teachers was for a course in classroom management, and they wrote that the course needed to include practical, explicit ideas to use in planning for management.

Teacher educators recognize that classroom management issues remain an area of concern for preservice teachers. In order to better prepare teachers for the challenges of classroom management in 21st century schools, there is a need to understand how prepared current student teachers feel about classroom management, and then to design experiences (possibly courses) to facilitate their preparation.


Clement

As the knowledge base of learning to teach continually grows, so too does the knowledge base of learning about classroom management. Researchers have investigated student teachers' images of management and conceptions of control in the classroom (Johnson, 1994; Morine-Dershimer & Reeve, 1994; Weinstein, 1998; Weinstein, Woolfolk, Dittmeier, & Shanker, 1994). Others looked specifically at the preparation or underpreparation of student teachers in the teacher education program (Meadows, 1994; Pilarski, 1994; White, 1995). Latz' (1992) research addressed concerns of preservice teachers about discipline, and Winitzky and Kauchak (1995) researched knowledge development in learning about classroom management.

The number of textbooks for te·aching classroom management also continues to grow. Many are texts. about the theory of management, introducing and summarizing approaches of other writers in the field (Burden, 1995; Charles, 1999; Tauber, 1995). Some texts combine teaching methods with management (Arends, 1997; Weinstein & Mignano, 1993). Other texts are explanations of one approach, with research, examples, and strategies for implementing that approach (Canter & Canter, 1992; Curwin & Mendler, 1988; Nelsen, Lott, & Glenn, 1997; Wong & Wong, 1998).

Purpose of This Study

The school of education at Berry College in Mt. Berry, Georgia, is redesigning teacher education programs for its early childhood, middle, secondary, and P-12 majors. Freshmen entering the college in the fall semester, 1999, are the first class involved in the new courses that constitute the program. Among the changes in the new program are year-long student teaching experiences for the students' senior year. During the first

6 GATEways Volume XIII (I) FalllOOO Teacher Education

Student Teac/1ers' Perceptio11s

semester of this year, a two-semester hour course on classroom management will be offered. This study was designed to provide insight into the current student teachers' perceptions of their preparation in classroom management, their preparedness and confidence to build positive classroom management in their first classrooms, and the management problems encountered during student teaching. In addition, the current student teachers were asked to write how their college education program could have prepared them better for classroom management issues. The research was designed to help inform decisions about the creation of the future classroom management class, which has been titled "Instructional Management."

Methodology

Participants in this study were 83 student teachers during . school year _1998-1999 at Berry College in northwest Georgia. The college is a private institution with an enrollment of2,000 students, graduating a total of approximately 1 00 student teachers a year. These student teachers were completing a traditional semester-long student teaching experience. Forty-one of the 83 student teachers (49o/o) were early childhood education majors, preparing for tea~her certification at the K-5 level. Sixteen of the student teachers (19o/o) were middle grades majors, which prepares them for certification at the 4-8 level in Georgia. Eleven of the student teachers (13%) were completing a minor in secondary education to become certified as teachers of 7-12 in the areas of history, biology, math, or family and consumer sciences . (home economics). Fifteen of the student teachers (18%) were completing a minor in P-12 teacher education to become certified in health and physical education, music, Spanish, art, or English. The average age of the student teachers who completed the survey was 24 years of age. Fifteen of the student teachers (18%)

GATEways to Ttacher Education 7

Clement

reported that they were transfer students from a two-year community college.

The survey designed for this research consisted of twelve statements to be rated on a Lickert-type scale and two openended, short-answer questions. Seven of the statements represented sources of help for student teachers in learning classroom management, such as, "My college methods class helped me feel prepared to deal with classroom management issues." Five of the statements were representative of student teachers' perceptions of confidence in classroom management, such as "I can determine appropriate rewards and reinforcements for my students." Students were asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with each statement by writing a number of one to seven, where one indicated total disagreement and seven indicated total agreement. All twelve statements are included on Tables 1 and 2, worded as they were on the original survey. _

The two open-response questions were "Please list one or two of the major classroom management problems that you encountered during student teaching," and "How could your college program have prepared you better for classroom management issues?"

The student teachers completed these surveys when they were back on campus for a Friday morning seminar, approximately two-thirds of the way through the student teaching semester. Participation was voluntary and all surveys were anonymous. Students were told that the survey would help professors to plan the management class, both the topics to be covered and the methods used to teach the course.

Results and Discussion

Sources of Help in Learning Classroom Management The statement receiving-the highest mean of the seven

statements regarding sources of help was "My cooperating

8 GATEways Volume XIII (I) Fall2000 Teacher Education

Student Teac/1ers' Perceptions

teacher helped me feel prepared to deal with classroom management," which received a 5.51 on a scale of 1 to 7.

Table 1 Sources of Help for Student Teachers in Learning

Classroom Management

Statement on Survey Mean response n = 83

1. My cooperating teacher helped me feel prepared to deal with classroom management issues. 5.51

2. I needed a separate course in classroom management. 4. 77

3. The student teaching seminar about classroom m~agement helped me feel prepared to deal with classroom management issues. 4. 72

4. My .college methods class helped me feel prepared to deal with classroom management tssues. 4.66

5. My college courses before student teaching helped me feel prepared to deal with classroom management issues. 4.54

6, My curriculum course helped me feel prepared to deal with classroom management issues. 4.38

7. My educational psychology courses helped me feel prepared to deal with classroom management tssues. 4.36

Note. Students were asked to rate their agreement with the statement on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 indicated "I disagree" and 7 indicated "I agree."


Clement

After the cooperating teacher, student teachers felt that the seminar during the student teaching semester helped them feel prepared, followed by their methods course, their courses in general, their curriculum course, and lastly, their educational psychology helped them to feel prepared for classroom management. In the sequence of courses taken in the current teacher education program, the educational psychology course is taken furthest in time from student teaching (probably early in the sophomore year), the curriculum class is next Gunior year), and the methods class next Gunior or senior year, depending upon major). The student teachers' rating of their sources ofhelp would indicate that those sources of help that are in the student teaching semester are most helpful, and those sources of help that are furthest in time from student teaching are least helpful. One conclusion might be that student teachers perceive sources of help most useful when management issues are real for them in the student teaching semester.

Perceptions of Confidence in Classroom Management Overall, the rating of the student teachers that they

perceived their cooperating teachers to be pleased with their management skills was rather high- a 6.16 on a scale o.f 1 to 7.

Table 2 Student Teachers' Perceptions of Confidence in


Statement on Survey Mean response n ~ 83

I. My cooperating teacher is pleased with my classroom management skills. 6.16

2. I can determine appropriate rewards and reinforcements for my students. 6.15

10 GATEways Volume XIII (I) Fan 2000 Teacher Education

Student Teachers' Perceptions

3. I feel confident about my abilities to establish a classroom management plan for my own first classroom. 6.07

4-. Classroom management has gone well in my student teaching. 5.82

5. I am familiar with good resources for further reading about classroom management. 5.45

Note. Students were asked to rate their agreement with the statement on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 indicated "I disagree" and 7 indicated "I agree."

Student teachers felt relatively confident about their abilities to determine appropriate rewards and reinforcements and to establish a classroom management plan for their first classrooms. Overall, they felt that management had gone well, but the mean for familiarity with resources for further reading about management was the lowest of the five statements in this group. No definitive conclusions can be drawn here, but questions for further study may be gained. What would the cooperating teachers say if asked how pleased they really were with their student teachers' classroom management skills? What would principals say of the student teachers' skills in a first classroom? If student teachers feel confident about management, but are not familiar with more resources, could they feel that good management comes from experience and other teachers, not from a knowledge base in books? Or could this mean that they just didn't become familiar with resources in classes and seminars in their programs of study?

Classroom Management Problems Encountered When students were asked to list one or two of the major

classroom management problems encountered, they listed the

GATEway! lo Teacher Education 1 I

Clement

following (items with the same number of response share the same numerical ranking): 1. talking, interrupting (listed 32 times) 2. students won't stay in seats, wriggle, squirm (listed 6 times) 3. dealing with ADD/behavior disorder children in the class

(listed 5 times) 3. off-task students (listed 5 times)' 5. rowdy, disrespectful, defiant student( s) (listed 4 times) 6. students who don't care, are unmotivated, have bad attitude

(listed 3 times) 7. students who don't follow directions (listed 3 times) 8. hitting, pushing (listed 2 times) 8. tattling, whining, complaining (listed 2 times) 8. transitions from one activity to another (listed 2 times) 8. students who are unaffected by warning, d-hall, or-parent call

(listed 2 times) . 8. bored students (listed 2 times) 8. refusing to complete assignments (listed 2 times)

The problem listed most often by student teachers in this study was talking/ interrupting, and that finding agrees with the number one problem cited in two other studies. Reed's (1989) research indicated excessive talking to be the number one student teacher discipline problem, followed by uncooperative behavior, instructional issues, not doing work, and insolent/rude behavior (p. 61). Tulley and Chiu (1995) also found that disruption (talking or some type of behavior that deliberately interrupts instruction) was the number one discipline problem in their study of discipline problems encountered by student teachers, followed by defiance and inattention (p. 166).

Better Pre,Raration for Management Issues Faced with these issues in the Hreal world" of student

teaching, it makes sense that student teachers would then cite

12 GATEways Volume XIII (I) FaU 2000 Teacher Education


practical examples, role-plays, and discussions when asked about preparation for management issues. Their answers to the question, "How could your college program have prepared you better for classroom management issues?" follow: 1. a separate class on management (listed 19 times) 2. professors need to drill us about student questions, needs for

permission, give us situations: role-plays: case studies (listed 8 times)

3. do more with classroom management in the practicum (listed 7 times)

4. give us more strategies and examples (listed 5 times) 5. more discussions and problem solving (listed 4 times) 6. teach us more about Canter and Wong (listed 3 times) 6. more books, resources (listed 3 times) 6. bring in teachers with good classroom management skills and

have them talk to us (listed 3 times) 6. more real-world examples (listed 3 times) 10. show videos about classroom management (listed 2 times) 10. ask us to write our own management plans (listed 2 times) 1 0. more explicit instruction and more time on management

issues (listed 2 times)

Further Discussion

There are no easy solutions to the management and discipline problems encountered by student teachers when they enter real-world classrooms. Yet, there is a growing body of knowledge about management and there are excellent resources available for study. Common sense dictates that a course in management should be offered as close to actual teaching as possible, and that a course offered concurrently with a year-long student teaching experience will provide many "teachable moments."


Clement

As the curriculum for the course is planned, the student teachers' suggestions and input should be included. Student teachers need some explicit guidelines for establishing individualized classroom management plans, and they need opportunities to discuss their classroom problems in a safe environment where reflection can lead to answers. They need to know a variety of approaches to management and to know how to evaluate the approaches that are currently marketed by publishers and individuals. It is critical that this course include instructional strategies as well as management strategies. It is hoped that the student teachers will learn models of studying the management problems that they encounter, so that they can learn to problem solve. Methods of study will include observation and diagnostic techniques.

The cooperating teacher's role in the preparation of student teachers for classroom management may be a pivotal one. A future study is being designed to assess what the cooperating teachers are currently teaching their student teachers and which models of management they are implementing in their classrooms. The college may indeed want to consider orientation and training of the cooperating teachers on the specific topic of management.

Conclusion

The new classroom management course for student teachers at Berry College will become a reality during the fall semester, 2002. It is rare that professors get three years of leadtime to create and research the curriculum of a new course. This study has provided some important background information for the design of the new course. From this background, a case can be made for the inclusion of not only classroom management theory in the course, but also some practical behaviorist models, and many resources from a variety of perspectives. Above all, it

14 GATEways Volume XIU (1) FalllOOO Teacher Education


is hoped that the course helps the student teachers to feel more successful by finding and developing their own classroom management skills.

References

Arends, R. I. (1997). Classroom instruction and management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Burden, P.R. (1995). Classroom management and discipline. New York: Longman.

Canter, L. & Canter, M. (1992). Assertive discipline. Santa Monica, CA: Lee Canter and Associates.

Charles, C. M. (1999). Building classroom discipline (6111

ed.). New York: Longman. Curwin, R. L. & Mendler, A. N. (1988). Discipline with

dignity. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Johnson, V. G. (1994). Student teachers' conceptions of classroom control. Journal of Educational Research, 88 (2), 109-117.

Latz, M. (1992). Preservice teachers' perceptions and concerns about classroom management and discipline: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3 (1), 1-4.

Meadows, N. B. ( 1994 ). A philosophy of teaching, not just managing behaviors. Teaching Education, 6 (1), 93-99.

Morine-Dershimer, G. & Reeve, P. T. (1994). Prospective teachers' images of management. Action in Teacher Education, 16 (1), 29-40.

Nelsen, J., Lott, L., & Glenn, H. S. (1997). Positive discipline in the classroom. Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing.

Pilarski, M. J. (1994). Student teachers: Underprepared for classroom management? Teaching Education, 6 (1), 77-80.

GATEways to Teacher Education IS

Clement

Reed, D. (1989). Student teacher problems wiiltb classroom discipline: Implications for program development. Action in Teacher Education, 11 (3), 59-65.

Tauber, R. T. (1995). Classroom management (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Tulley, M. & Chiu, L. H. (1995). Student teachers and classroom discipline. Journal of Educational Researc~, 88 (3), 164-171.

Weinstein, C. S. (1998). HI want to be nice, but I have to be mean'': Exploring prospective teachers' conceptions of caring and order. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14 (2), 153-163.

Weinstein, C. S. & Mignano, A. J. (1993). Elementary classroom management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Weinstein, C. S., Woolfolk, A. E., Dittrneier, L., & Shanker, U. (1994). Protector or prison guard? Using metaphors and media to explore student teachers' thinking about ~lassroom management. Action in Teacher Education, 16 (1), 41 .. 54.

White, C. ( 1995). Making classroom management in teacher education relevant. Teacher Education and Practice: The Journal of the Texas Associatiorz of Colleges for Teacher Education, 11 ( 1 ), 15-21.

Winitzky, N. & Kauchak, D. (1995). Learning to teach: Knowledge development in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11 (3 ), 215-217.

Wong, H. K. & Wong, R. T. (199~). How to be an effective teacher: The first days of school. Mountain View, CA: Harry K. Wong.

16 GATEways Volume XIII (J) Fall2000 Teacher Education

Classroom Management in Our Schools A Study of the Savannah-Chatham County

Elementary Schools

Mildri Garcia and Cheryl McFadden

Abstract

Classroom management is the leading concern among education professionals, parents, and the community (Jones & Jones, 1998). Although colleges and universities are beginning to include classroom management as part of their teacher education programs, many teachers in the field have not taken such a course prior to their first teaching position. In addition, many of the courses that are offered may not be addressing the issues which teachers in the field are experiencing. This study examined the classroom management practices of teachers in the SavannahChatham County Public School system in Savannah, Georgia. Ninety percent of the elementary schools and sixty-two percent of the elementary school teachers responded to the survey. The results of the data support the hypothesis that the reason teachers are ineffective classroom managers is because they take a reactive instead of a proactive approach to managing students' behavior, as well as planning and organizing the environment.

Introduction

Classroom management is the leading concern among education professionals, parents, and the community (Jones & Jones, 1998). Colleges and universities are beginning to include classroom management trainiug in their teacher preparation

(iATEways to Tcacbcr Education 17

Garcia

programs. Unfortunately, classroom management courses are often not required; therefore, many teachers in the field have not taken such a course prior to their first teaching position. In addition, many required courses may not address real classroom management issues that teachers in the field are experiencing. Some of these issues include dealing with the diverse population of students in classroom, the nature of behavior problems occurring, and the lack of parental support . . If classroom management is intricately related to learning, then ineffective classroom management can only lead to deficient learning.

It cannot be disputed that society is in an upheaval. Divorce rates are at an all time high--49o/o of all new marriages end up in divorce (Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 1 996). Over one million children were victims of substantiated or indicated child abuse and neglect in 1995 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). In 1997, the poverty rate of children was at 19% (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 1999). Since proper nutrition is closely related to learning, it is important to note that according to The Forum on Child and Family Statistics, many young children and adolescents have diets that are poor or need improvement. Twenty-four percent of2- to 5-year-olds had a good diet compared with only 6% of teenagers ages 13 to 18%. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, 5 out of every 100 young adults enrolled in high school in 1995 left without successfully completing a high school program. Although this statistic bas remained constant over the past ten years, the dropout rate is still, nevertheless, discouraging since it has not improved.

Every day, four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence. Conservative estimates reveal that 2 to 4 million women of all races and classes are battered each year. Every year, current or former male partners forcibly rape 1.2 million women, some more than once. Violent juvenile offenders are four times more likely to have grown up in homes where they



saw violence. Children who have witnessed violence at home are also five times more likely to commit or suffer violence when they become adults (American Medical Association, 1991; Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992; U.S. Department of Justice, 1994 ).

As microcosms of society, schools are likely to have the same types of problems. Additionally, the impact these problems have on children results in schools filled with students whose basic needs may not be satisfied. As a result, schools are forced to adopt a role that is much more comprehensive than the traditional role of teaching the "3R' s." If teachers are forced to expand their role in the classroom to meet the basic psychological needs of students, then teacher preparation programs must include courses that address these issues.

Since 1996, teacher education students at Armstrong Atlantic State University (AASU) have been required to take a classroom management course prior to or during student teaching in order to be recommended for state certification. Classroom management encompasses all aspects of the classroom to include rules, procedures, organization, time management, and behavior management. Its broad focus suggests that classroom management is more than just controlling the inappropri_ate behavior of students. The material covered in the course prepares teachers to be proactive in their handling of the classroom, which in turn prevents many behavior problems.

As a result of teaching this course, we became very interested in investigating practicing teachers' knowledge of classroom management. A pilot study conducted in Effingham, Chatham, Bryan, and Glynn counties in the spring of 1998 confirmed that classroom management training was needed to prepare teachers to deal with the diversity and complexity that exists in schools today. Less than 10% of the inservice teachers surveyed had received formal training in classroom management.


Garcia

Methodology

In response to the results of this pilot study, we contacted the Savatu1ah~Chatham County Public School administration in the fall of 1998 and offered to collaborate with them in an effort to improve effective classroom management practices in the schools. They agreed to assist us in data collection that would specifically be used to identify topics to include in both undergraduate and graduate courses in classroom management, as well as develop staff development training for district teachers.

The diversity of the Savatu1ah-Chatham County Public School system challenges school administrators because the student population in the public schools.is disproportionately minority. Chatham County has a population of approximately 220,000 people with approximately 38o/o of these classified as minorities (African American, Hispanic, Asian, and other). Student enrollment for the Savarmah-Chatham Public Schools is 19,150 for the elementary schools (29 schools), 6,038 for the middle schools (ten schools), and 9,094 for the high schools (seven schools). For the purpose of this paper, we focused on the elementary schools that have approximately a 69% minority enrollment-a figure that is not proportional to the minority representation of the population in generaL Due to the demographic nature of Chatham County, there are schools located in urban, rural, and suburban settings. There are also 26 magnet academies that offer innovative curriculum for students at all grade levels of varying backgrounds. In addition, the district provides educational options for students who have left or may leave school before graduating (See Table 1).

To gather this information, we developed and administered a classroom management survey to every teacher in the Savannah·Chatham County Public Schools (See Appendix A). To administer the survey, we met with Savannah-Chatham



County School principals to explain our research and request their participation.

Initially, these data were going to assist us in improving our undergraduate course and developing a new graduate course. However, preliminary findings revealed that the data have other significant applications. First, these data will be used to better understand the differences that exist among schools in the effective use of classroom management strategies and techniques. As a result, AASU students will be placed in practicum sites that facilitate the development of classroom management skills. Additionally, these data wil1 allow us to establish a better relationship with the local school system as we assist them in improving teaching effectiveness in the area of classroom management. Finally, these data will be used to assist in the implementation of the State Department of Education Warranty Program, a program adopted by the Georgia P-16 Initiative and the Georgia Board of Regents.

Twenty-six out of twenty-nine elementary schools completed the survey-a 90o/o return rate. Additionally, 737 of 1,182 elementary school teachers completed the survey-a 62% response rate. Our main goal was to identify effective and ineffective classroom management strategies and techniques and to identify specific areas in need of improvement. In addition, we hoped to educate the public school administrators about their role in facilitating effective c1assroom management in their particular schools. Another goal was to create individual school profiles for the Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education. Finally, we hoped that the data would prove our hypothesis that the reason teachers are ineffective classroom managers is because they take a reactive instead of a proactive approach to managing students' behavior and organization of the classroom environment. Ultimately, the results of these data would enable us to design a

GATEways to Teacher Educ:ation 21

Garcia

course that would equip teachers with the knowledge, skills and strategies necessary to be proactive classroom managers.

Terminology

At this point, it is necessary for us to define relevant terminology. Classroom management is defined as all behaviors and actions that take place in the classroom that lead to successful teaching and le~ing. It includes rules, procedures, environment, planning, teaching methodologies, behavior management, organizational and time management skills, and any other tasks that indirectly or directly affect the teach_ing and learning process. A proactive teacher is one who chooses to use positive methodologies for managing behavior and, who, thoughtfully plans for all of the eventualities that occur in the classroom. For example, a proactive teacher uses nonverbal intervention techniques to manage behavior, plans interesting lessons that motivate and challenge students, maximizes instructional time, and possesses organizational and time management skills. A proactive teacher has high expectations of all students regardless of the student's ability level.

A reactive teacher is one who fails to prepare or anticipate problems that may arise in the classroom. This type of teacher is cqnstantly reacting to a student's inappropriate behavior using intrusive management strategies that have the potential for creating power struggles between the teacher and the student. The reactive teacher has not thought about situations that might arise in the classroom and, therefore, is not prepared for them. The reactive teacher tends to n1ake poor choices because the decisions are made under stressful situations. For example, a reactive teacher uses verbal reprimands and threats to control behavior, rarely uses innovative teaching methodologies to present new concepts, and is always playing "catch-up" with

ll GATEways Volume XIII (I) Fall2000 Ttather Education

Classroom Manageme11t

noninstructional tasks. As a result, classroom instruction is adversely affected by the lack of preparedness on the part of the teacher.

Results

The survey consisted of nine questions (See Appendix A). Most of the questions were qualitative in nature with a few quantitative questions included. The first step of data analysis consisted of compiling the data by school. Next, the data was analyzed by question and compiled by grade level. Finally, the data was compiled for all the elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. This paper presents the data for the elementary schools.

Question number one asked the participants to identify their three most effective behavior management techniques. We took the responses and classified them as either proactive or reactive. A percentage of proactive and reactive responses was determined for each school (See Table 2). As Table 2 indicates, 53o/o of the responses were categorized as proactive and 47o/o reactive. When broken down by suburban versus urban/rural schools, there was no significant difference. The three most commonly noted proactive behavior management techniques were praise, rewards, and consistency in instructional program and behavior management. The three reactive behavior management techniques ranked as most effective were time-out, removal of privileges, and parental contact.

Question number two asked participants to rank personnel in the school or district that provided the most support in dealing with disruptive students. We provided the respondents with a list of possible choices including principal, assistant principal, guidance counselor, parents/caregivers, teachers, and central


Garcia

office administration. Space was provided for respondents to list "other" personnel also. Teachers were ranked as the number one support personnel for other teachers in a school. The principal and assistant principal tied for second, with parents, guidance counselors, and the central office administration ranking third, fourth, and fifth, respectively.

In question number three, respondents were asked if they perceive that parents of their students were interested and concerned about their children's behavior. Seventy-three percent of the parents were deemed interested and concerned. Respondents were also asked to write a rationale for their responses. Parents who were interested and concerned attended conferences, were active in school functions, responded to communication from the teacher, and supported the teacher's decisions in the home. Parents who were unsupportive rarely attended conferences or school functions, considered discipline the responsibility of the school, did not support the teacher at home, and failed to communicate with the teacher. They undermined the authority of both the teacher and the school resulting in a lack of respect from both the parents and the child.

In question number four, respondents were asked to identify the percentage of parents who supported their decisions regarding the welfare of their children. Respondents ranked 72o/o of parents as supportive.

Question number five asked respondents to name the college or university where they received their teacher education training. The majority of the teachers who responded to the survey were trained in Georgia. These universities include AASU, Georgia Southern University, Georgia State University, and the University of Georgia. This question was included in the survey to ascertain whether colleges and universities were including classroom management in their teacher preparation programs. We also wanted to determine if teachers employed by



Savannah-Chatham County Public Schools were educated in Georgia.

The next question asked respondents if the instruction that they received in their teacher preparation program prepared them for the reality of the general education classroom. Seventy-five percent of the respondents felt that their teacher education program did not prepare them for the classroom. Seven percent did not receive instruction in classroom management at all in their teacher education program, and those who did reported inadequate coverage of the topic as part of another class. The respondents who received training in this area felt that it was not relevant to their current situation. They reported that changes in society have affected today's students and, therefore, managing classrooms is now very different than in the past. The respondents stressed the need for ongoing staff development and for increased practicum experiences for preservice teachers.

Question number seven asked respondents to describe the three most effective strategies for managing their non-teaching/ administrative tasks such as record keeping, lesson planning, and data collection. Responses were categorized as time management, organizational strategies, use of technology, and delegation of responsibilities. The respondents identified time management (43o/o) and organizational skills (39%) as the two most useful strategies for managing non-teaching/administrative tasks. They also listed time management strategies such as the use of a daily planner/calendar, working before and after school, and prioritizing tasks. Organizational strategies included checklists, a filing system, and the use of notebooks. The use of technology ( 11 %) and the delegation of responsibilities (7o/o) were cited but were used less frequently than time management and organization.

The three most essential topics for a course in classroom management identified in question number eight by the respondents were interacting .with parents, behavior managen1ent


Garcia

strategies and techniques, and issues related to diversity in the classroom. Time management and organizational strategies were also cited but not as often. Other topics identified were paperwork management, docwnentation, self-defense, and planning interesting lessons.

The final question asked respondents to give specific suggestions to improve teacher education programs. The most frequent suggestion was to require more and diverse field experiences for the preservice teacher. In addition, teachers suggested that education programs needed to require a course in classroom management. Inservice teachers should also have the opportunity to update their knowledge in this area through staff development and graduate workshops an_d courses. The topics identified in question number eight were also identified as topics to include in an undergraduate program of study.

Discussion

The results of the data support the hypothesis that the reason teachers are ineffective classroom managers is because they take a reactive instead of a proactive approach to managing students' behavior as well as planning and organizing the classroom environment. Teachers use reactive approaches to classroom discipline 43o/o of the time. Although proactive strategies are used a little more than half of the time (53o/o), they do not foster a strong proactive classroom. In order to achieve a proactive classroom, teachers must consistently use strategies and techniques that- encourage self-regulation in students. In this type of classroom, the locus of control is on the student. The teacher becomes a facilitator and educational leader resulting in a classroom where learning is the first priority. Currently, classroom discipline dominates instructional time (Cotton, 1992).

26 GATEwa)'s Volume XIII (I) Fall 2000 Teacher Education

Classroom Ma11ageme11t

Teaching is a collaborative process that requires the support of the administration, parents, and related personnel such as the guidance counselor. The diverse nature of our schools necessitates mutual support among these individuals in order to achieve instructional excellence. Successful teaching cannot be accomplished in isolation. It is not surprising that teachers considered other teachers the primary support personnel in dealing with disruptive students (See Figure 1).

It is encouraging to note that teachers perceive 73o/o of the parents as interested and concerned about their child's behavior, and 72% of the parents supported teachers' decisions regarding the welfare of their children. These data cross-validate each other. Parents express their support by participating in both the instructional and social components of the school. However, it should be noted that this support is often erratic. Even those parents unable to attend school functions are still considered supportive of the teachers' decisions. However, it is interesting to note that m~y of the respondents expressed a concern about parents' lack of knowledge about the educational process. As a result, parents' uninvolvement may be attributed to their lack of knowledge not lack of interest.

It is no wonder that teachers are having difficulty managing classrooms. Only 25% of the respondents reported receiving instruction in classroom management in their teacher preparation program. Without proper training in classroom management, teachers may manage their classrooms unsuccessfully. As stated earlier, if classroom management is intricately related to learning, then ineffective classroom management can only lead to deficit learning. This implies that children placed in classrooms with ineffective classroom managers may not receive quality instruction. In an effort to improve the retention rate, new teachers need to

learn time management strategies. Although teachers seem to be using time management strategies and organizational skills to


Garcia

manage their classrooms, these results are somewhat deceptive. Teachers reported that they work before and after school hours and on the weekends. The implication is that teachers are not managing their in-school time wisely and, therefore, must use personal time to meet the requirements of their job. Additionally, only 11% of the teachers use technology to assist in organizational tasks and to facilitate teaching and learning. Even more startling, teachers delegate responsibilities only 7% of the time. Again) these results are interwoven with time management since the lack of delegation results in additional work for the teacher. It also implies that teacher preparation programs are obligated to require courses in classroom management that include "time" management strategies. _

The respondents reported essential topics for a classroom management course as interacting with parents, behavior management strategies and techniques, and issues related to diversity. Although these are integral parts of a course in classroom management, they constitute only a small segment of the training that is necessary to prepare teachers who are proactive classroom managers. Classroom management is multifaceted and also includes policies, procedures and rules, instructional design, communication (teacher-teacher, teacherstudent, student-student and teacher-parent), enhancing student motivation, basic psychological needs of students and classroom environment. If schools are a microcosm of society, and if society is constantly evolving, then, classroom management instruction must also evolve in response to the changing nature of society.

Teachers are aware of the need for classroom manage~ent instruction. They identified the need for additional field experiences throughout their teacher preparation program as the primary recommendation to improve teacher education programs which may, hopefully, give them confidence in their abilities to manage a classroom effectively.



Conclusions

There are some important recommendations that can be derived from the results of this survey.

1. · Teachers employ reactive strategies regardless of the type of school (rural, suburban, and urban); therefore, teachers are not discriminating based on socio-economic status. Unfortunately, proactive teachers do not dominate our classrooms~ consequently, teachers must be more aware of the need for a proactive classroom.

2. Teachers identified praise, rewards, and consistency as the three most common proactive strategies used in the classroom. We would agree that praise and consistency are important ingredients of a proactive classroom. However, we are concerned with identifying rewards as a proactive strategy since rewards do not promote intrinsic motivation in students. Rewards should not be used as the predominant motivator of appropriate behavior in students.

3. Since teachers identified other teachers as the primary support personnel in dealing with disruptive students, it is imperative that collaborative relationships be encouraged and fostered by the school administration. Opportunities for developing communications skills, and inter- and intrapersonal skills should be included in staff development training.

4. Although parents are interested and concerned about their children's progress and are supportive of teachers' decisions (approximately 72% of the time), parents are not as involved in the daily operations of the school as they could be. Teachers and school administrators must train parents to channel their interest, concern, and support in more concrete and constructive ways such as volunteering in the classroom and school, and participating in decision-

GATEways to Teacher Eduution 29

Garcia

making committees. Teachers and school administrators must entice parents to become more involved by developing creative programs.

5. Teacher education programs throughout the nation must include a classroom management course with a proactive focus to better prepare teachers for success in the classroom. They need to include diverse and more quality field experiences for preservice teachers and ongoing staff development for inservice teachers.

6. Teachers must be trained to use time management skills more effectively. As a result, teachers will not be forced to use personal time to manage their classrooms. In addition, teachers must be trained to use resources (paraprofessionals, parents, students, and community volunteers), appropriately. Lastly, teachers need to take advantage of technology as a means of reducing their workload. -

7. In a good classroom management course, the emphasis must be on proactive teaching strategies, thus, reducing the need for using behavior management strategies in the classroom.

Upon reflection there are other areas that could be examined in the field of classroom management. For example, further research could be conducted on the administration's perspective. Our survey primarily focused on the teacher's perspective, and it would be interesting to see if there is any correlation between the two. In addition, data from the survey should have included questions to ascertain the number of years of teaching experience. This data might reveal whether there is any relationship between the number of years of experience and the tendency for proactivity and reactivity in the classroom. In subsequent articles, the data for middle and secondary schools

30 GATEways Volume XIII (I) Fan 2000 Teacher Education


will be presented and compared to the results from the elementary schools.

We began this article describing the current state of society and its effect on our publi~ schools. As college of education professors, we would be remiss if we did not address the turbulent state in today' s classrooms. Better classroom management is not the cure-all for these problems; however, training proactive teachers will help to increase the likelihood of influencing positive change in the classroom.

References

Cotton, K. (1992). Schoolwide and classroom discipline. School improvement research series: Close-up #9. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (1999). America's children: Key national indicators of wellbeing. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

American Medical Association. ( 1 991 ). Five Issues In American Health. Chicago.

Levin, J. & Nolan, J. F. (1996). Principles of classroom management, 2"d edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center. (1992). The National Women's Study. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.

United States Monthly Vital Statistics Report. (1996). 45(12).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Child maltreatment 1995: Reports from the states to the national child abuse and neglect data system. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Justice. (1994, January). Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report. Washington, DC.

GATEways to Teather Education JJ

Garcia

Table I Savannah-Chatham County Public Schools

Elementary Schools by 0/o of Minorities, % of Free/Reduced Lunch And

Total # of Students

School Location %of Minority %Free/Reduced TotaJ #of Lunch Students

Bartow Urban 78 69 575 Bloomingdale Rural 33 56 508 Butler Urban 90 77 664 East Broad Urban 85 87 887 Ellis Urban 58 - 60 419 Gadsden Urban 85 87 622 Garden City Urban 70 79 811 Garrison Urban 91 90 789 Georgetown Suburban 56 72 766 Gould Rural 56 72 766 Haven Urban 95 88 432 Heard Suburban 79 72 511 Hesse Suburban 50 54 870 Hodge Urban 97 86 578 Howard Suburban 35 34 906 Islands Suburban 67 66 856 lsleofHope Suburban 54 51 709 Largo-Tibet Suburban 70 56 636 Low Suburban 75 71 679 Marsh point Suburban 43 39 723 Pooler Rural 34 42 739 Pt. Wentworth Rural 58 74 465 Pulaski Urban 87 77 550 J.G.Smith Suburban 68 68 425 Spencer Urban % 90 454 Thunderbolt Suburban 89 84 655 White Bluff Suburban 64 56 870 Whitney Urban 90 93 530 Windsor Forest Suburban 57 50 755 Total 69 77 19150

32 GATEways Volume XIII (I) Fa112000 Teacher Eduution


Table II Savannah-Chatham County Public Schools

Elementary Schools by 0/o of Proactive and Reactive Responses

School % 0/o Pro active Reactive

Bartow 67 34 Bloomingdale 51 49 Butler 57 43 East Broad 48 52 E I lis 49 5 J Gadsden 69 . 3 1 Garden City 47 53 Garrison 57 43 Gould 65 35 Haven 62 38 Heard 45 55 Hesse - 56 44 Hodge 42 58 Howard 59 41 Is lands 61 39 Isle of Hope 61 39 Low 56 44 M arshpoint 63 37 Pooler 39 61 Pt. Wentworth 40 60 J.G .Smith 51 49 Spencer 48 52 Thunderbolt 49 5 I White Bluff 65 35 Whitney 58 42 Windsor Forest E I em 28 72


Garcia



Classroom Management Survey

Name: (optional) _____ _ School: Grade Level: --------

College of Education Subject: Date: -------------

Directions: Please answer each question in the space provided.

1. Identify the three most effective techniques and strategies for managing student behavior.

2. Rank the individuals in your school or district who support you in dealing with disruptive students. (#I is the most supportive) principal assistant principal guidance counselor parents/ care givers teachers Board of Education Administration other ------

3. In your classroom, what percentage of parents support you in making decisions regarding the welfare of the student? Please circle the percentage. 0-10~ 10-20o/o 20-30~

30-40~ 40-50~ 50-60~

60-70~ 70-80~ 80-90% 90-100~

4. Did you receive adequate instruction and training in classroom management in your teacher preparation program? If your answer is yes, please identify the college or university.

5. Identify the most effective techniques for handling non-teaching tasks such as record keeping, lesson planning, data collection, etc.

6. Identify specific topics to be included in a course on classroom management that would better prepare preservice teachers for effective classroom teaching and management.

7. What two recommendations would you give the College of Education at Armstrong Atlantic State University for preparing future teachers for the classroom?



One Hundred Twenty-three Student Teachers: Common Fears and Possible Interventions

Anita S. VanBrackle, Toni Bellon, Janelle Poole, Jane McHaney, Lewis VanBrackle, and Bob Michael

Abstract

In an effort to understand the "trials and tribulations" of student teaching, we gathered qualitative and quantitative information from 123 student teachers at both the elementary and middle grades levels. The quantitative results allowed us to make direct comparisons of student teacher stress levels to stpndardized stress scores of experienced teachers. The stress levels experienced by our student teachers were within the normal range of expected stress levels for experienced teachers.

The qualitative information gave us insights into the fears and expectations of students before beginning student teaching and information about their experiences during student teaching. The qualitative data were clustered into jive conceptual focus areas: affective, people, external, physical, and classroom. The analysis of these clusters of data uncovered various patterns of sources of frustrations and types of coping mechanisms. The detailed exploration of the information provides insights into ways to assist students before and during student teaching.

Review of Literature

We have assumed the challenging role of fostering our students' capabilities for professional decision making as teacher


VanBrackle

educators. During methods classes and student teaching assignments, our students are required to achieve superior perfonnance as they apply what they have learned to maximize student achievement. While we cannot ignore the role of constructivism in preparing new teachers, we are cautioned that novices need to be taught tools to emphasize making meaning through informed decisions and subsequent evaluation of their ultimate effectiveness (Wassermann, 1999). To assist our students for the complex work of teaching that includes sorting through and addressing daily classroom dilemmas, we investigated student perceptions of the student teaching experience. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, our goal was to understand the anxieties that preservice professionals have constructed before and during their student teaching experience. In this paper we discuss future student teachers' perceptions of readiness and preparation before the student teaching experience and then compare their preconceptions with their perceptions after completing student teaching. We offer suggestions for preparing students for the final goal of designing and organizing instruction for initial classroom experiences.

Literature focusing on students' professional experience demonstrates that newcomers to teaching are plagued by the ambiguities of classroom practice (Wassermann, 1999; Abernathy, Manera, & Wright, 1985; Bradley, 1984; Womack, I 983, and Ford, 1992). These studies have identified student teacher concerns about the professional problems of beginning teachers ranging from discipline, stress and fatigue, relationships with peers and supervisors, planning, teaching methods, time management, local policies and procedures to personal advice, and the search for appropriate courses of actions in dealing with confusing issues. Other researchers (Calhoun, 1986; Hourcade, Parette, McConnack, 1988; Gold, 1984) have identified the competing roles of the student as a cause for potential concern and anxiety for preservice educators. However, Eskridge and

38 GATEways Volume XIJI (I) Fa11 2000 Teacher Education

Student Tellcllers

Coker ( 1985) concluded that less professional preparation led to increased stress while teaching. While it is clear from the research that novice teachers sometimes struggle to adapt to the tensions of teaching, it is less clear from the research how teacher education programs can be responsive to students' concerns and address perceptions and possible misconceptions regarding initial professional experiences. Many of the published research designs included small samples (n< 50) with written, forced-choice response formats where respondents were given few opportunities to explain or elaborate on their perceptions.

The case study design offers a more detailed analysis of student concerns, but the method sacrifices generalizability. One such study focusing on three preservice special educators offers qualitative insights regarding students' perceptions of teaching through the examination of journal entries, observations, and participant interviews (Renick, 1996). Findings from this study identified that preconceptions of special educators, reactions to the culture of the building, and professional knowledge and skills supported a strong connection between university preparation and actual classroom practice. Success in student teaching was strengthened when supported by professionals in a collegial atmosphere. While the small size of this sample and the focus on special education preservice professionals limit its generalizability to other populations of preservice teachers, the methodology used allows in-depth examination of both student preconceptions related to teaching and subsequent perceptions of the teaching experiences.

There seems to be a lack of research that combines quantitative and qualitative analysis of preservice student perceptions and experiences. However, a study by Baxter (1996) combined both research traditions to examine and quantify preservice teachers' perceptions of preparedness for inservice teaching. His research compared two clinical models. One was an integrated model that emphasized the relationship between


VanBrackle

liberal theory and practice, and the second was a traditional model that emphasized the teacher as leader and manager. His sample included data from 342 preservice teachers with qualitative follow up one year later on 76 key informant participants. Findings from his research indicated that students participating in the integrated model for teacher preparation were significantly more likely to see themselves as fully prepared. Qualitative follow up revealed that the odds for being inducted as full-time inservice teachers one year later were 19.7 times greater for those who perceived themselves previously as fully prepared. This study provides strong support for an integrated model for clinical instruction and· proposes criteria for a selection process for student teaching placements. The design and results of this research offer much food for thoughtful reflection on the interplay between preservice training and, ultimately, teacher retention.

Our investigation incorporated both quantitative and qualitative designs to examine student perceptions and concerns about student teaching and their professional preparation. Data was collected prior to and immediately after student teaching. Our focus WaS to understand and to address student concerns and perceptions for improving field experiences on our campus and to enhance our understanding for supporting preservice teachers.

Methods Participants

The participants in this study were 69 student volunteers enrolled in an Early Childhood Education (ECE) program and 54 student volunteers enrolled in a Middle Grades Education (MGE) program at a four-year state university located in the suburbs of a major southeastern city.

40 GATEways Volume XIII (I) Fa112000 Teacher Education

Student Teachers

Instrumentation Two instruments were used for data collection. The first

instrument, the Teacher Stress Inventory (TSI), yielded only quantitative data. The second instrument, the Stress Rating Scale (SRS), provided both quantitative and qualitative data.

The Teacher Stress Inventory The Teacher Stress Inventory (TSI) is a 49-item, 1 0-factor

instrument that assesses the degree of strength of occupational stress experienced by American teachers in the public schools. The 5 stress source factors are Time Management, Work-Related Stressors, Professional Distress, Discipline and Motivation, and Professional Investment; the 5 stress manifestation factors are Emotional Manifestaticns, Fatigue Manifestations, Cardiovascular Manifestations, Gastronomic Manifestations, and Behavioral Manifestations (Fimian, p. 8). Results of this assessment were then compared to norms established for elementary teachers and middle grade teachers.

Stress Rating Scale Two forms of the Stress Rating Scale (SRS) were

developed by the lead researcher, VanBrackle (1993). The SRS form included four open stem statements that addressed each phase (methods and materials, field experience, student teaching, and first year teaching) of the individual's educational and professional experiences. The first two questions asked the students to rate their personal feelings of stress on a scale of 1 to 1 0 and then to list those factors that they felt raised their stress during that time and list those factors that lowered their stress during that time. The next two questions asked the students to predict what they felt their perceived stress levels would be during student teaching and first year teaching as well as to identify those factors that they felt would raise and lower their stress levels during that time. The second form of the SRS


VanBrackle

administered at the end of student teaching repeated the last two open stem statements addressing student teaching and first year teaching. The participants were asked to report their feelings of stress during student teaching and to predict their feelings of stress during their first year teaching.

Design Prior to student teaching, each participant was asked to

complete the first form of the Stress Rating Scale. After student teaching, participants completed the second form of the SRS. The results of the second SRS questionnaire were then compared to the results of the first SRS questionnaire. During the same session, the second instrwnent, The Teacher Stress Inventory, (1988) was completed. The results of this assessment were then compared to norms established for elementary teachers and middle grade teachers.

Analysis The written comments attached to each stem statement on

the SRS were tecorded in a word processing program and later analyzed using the Non-numerical, Unstructured Data Indexing, Searching and Theorizing (NUD·IST) program (Qualitative Solutions and Research, 1995). The numerical scoring for each stem of the SRS and the results of the TSI were entered into a database using the JMP Software for Statistical Visualization (SAS Institute, 1989). Quantitative data from the SRS were analyzed to obtain a numerical overview of predicted stress prior to and perceived stress after the student teaching experience for both the ECE program and the MOE program.


Results

Quantitative Data: An Overview of Predicted and Reported Student Teacher Stress

Student Teachers

Data from the SRS were examined using a repeated measures Analysis ofVariance with program (ECE vs MGE) and level (predicted vs reported) as factors. There was a significant interaction (p. = .0012) between the program level and the students' ability to predict their level of stress (see Figure 1 ). On average the level of stress that the ECE students predicted for their student teaching experience was significantly higher than the average level of stress that was reported by the ECE students after student teaching (p =.0135). For the MGE students t!te pattern was reversed with the mean level of stress predicted being lower than the average level of stress reported after student teaching (p :::.0276). While the ECE students predicted average student teaching stress levels that were significantly higher than MGE students predicted (p =.00 18), the reported stress levels for ECE and MGE showed no significant difference (p = .0810) between the two programs at the a = .05 level.

7~

72 7.11 6.8 66 . 6J 62 (, 0 •

3M 56 1 H .

Stress Rating Scale ECE and MGE

Prcdlc:tcd Reponed

Figure 1

:~ECE ,;

:_:--11:-MG_!l


•

VanBrackle

Analysis of the Teacher Stress Inventory (TSI) permitted a · tlirect comparison to normed scores for experienced ECE teachers

and MGE teachers. Results indicated that average scores in all factors fell within the acceptable range of scores for both groups (between the tenth and ninetieth decile scores, Fimian, pp. 21-38) (See Figures 2 and 3).

ECE Teacher St•••• Inventory

6 .•. -- -- - ·····- ···· ··--·-·-- --·--· ·· ····- -· ... -- --- ...• . -- .• '

:1 • :i j ~~-~-_:_=::-:;.~ ~~~~=-~~ i--"" •.• ,--~~~ j •: t--~-~ 4::;,~-=~----~~ 1--'"'"'m" · t.~ t~-~-=~----·-.:: -~--------~I ., ~~eclle --~

0 .5 -t ... .. ···-. -. --·· ·- -------- ·--·- --- - - . . -- . - ·--- .. . 0 ·• ··-- . ---- ·-- - ·· - _.,. ___ . - ........ ·---··-- ·-·.. .. -- . -- ····-

; . I . I I . .! L__

I .! 1 !

I l

J I J 1

Figure 2

!

«~~---------------------------.~---------------------------

Figure 3

Qualitative Analysis

C a te gories

Detailed data analysis using the NUD*IST program (1995) was conducted to examine patterns and themes of student concerns prior to student teaching and strategies suggested before and after student teaching. This software is designed to facilitate


Student Teachers

analysis through hierarchical groupings of patterns and themes. Additionally, the software provides numerical data related to the number and percentage of respondents within each grouping. Five main categories or themes of concerns emerged from the data analysis. These categories were designated as: affective, people, external, physical, and classroom. The categories were defined as follows:

Category Definition

Affective The affective category included all stress raisers and stress reducers reported by the students and related to their feelings and emotions.

People The people category included all stress raisers and stress reducers related to the people in the students' lives. This category encompassed family, peers, professors, cooperating teachers, and students.

External The external category included all stress raisers and stress reducers that are associated with problems beyond the teachers' control, such as weather and traffic.

Physical The physical category included all stress raisers and stress reducers relative to the students' physical needs, such as exercise and sleep.

Classroom The classroom category included all stress raisers and stress reducers that are related to teaching and learning.

The percentages of respondents in each category were calculated based on the total number of students classified as ECE or MOE.


..

VanBrackle

Comparison of Predicted and Reported Concerns A comparison of the predicted concerns with the reported

concerns is shown in Table 1. Both ECE and MGE students reported significant increases in percentage of responses from predicted to reported in four areas of concern. Under the focus area of people, both groups indicated that university lack of support and cooperating teachers caused more concerns than they had predicted. Discipline/management and grading, concerns identified in the focus area of classroom, were reported in a higher percentage of responses by both program areas than either had predicted.

. Significant increases unique to the ECE program were found in the focus area of people and in the focus area of classroom. The people concern was identified as family responsibilities, and the classroom concerns were observations/ evaluations, time management, and paper work/busy work.

Significant changes in reported concerns for MGE were located in the areas of affective, people, and classrooms. For the affective focus area the identified concern was fear of failure . The percentage of students reporting this concern significantly decreased after student teaching. Student problem~ in the area of people showed a significant increase, and planning lessons and units in the area of classroom also showed significant increases in the percent of responses.

When percentages of predicted coping strategies before student teaching were compared with percentages of reported coping strategies after student teaching, the programs had some common areas of significant increase (see Table 2). In the focus area of people, university support as well as teacher, staff, and principal support yielded significant increases in percent of responses. In the area of classroom, increased use of organization and planning as a coping strategy was significant in both groups.

Significant increases of reported coping strategies unique to the ECE program were found in the focus areas of affective and

46 GATEways Volume Xlll (I) FalllOOO Teacher Education

Student Teachers

people. The strategy of looking for the positive focus and feedback was reported at a higher rate than predicted in the affective area. Within the area of people, reliance on family and significant others and friends and peers was reported at a higher percentage than predicted. Only one unique result was significant for students in the MOE program. Reliance on classroom students' support showed a significant increase after student teaching.

Comparison of the expectations of concerns and coping strategies between the two programs provided the following insights. A significantly higher percentage of students in the ECE program predicted that planning lessons and units would be a concern. A significantly higher percentage of MGE ~tudents anticipated wedding plans would be a concern during student teaching. For predicted coping strategies, only the strategy of student support yielded a significant difference. A higher percentage of ECE students predicted use of student support as a coping strategy.

After student teaching, reported concerns related to student problems occurred at a significantly higher rate in the MOE program than in the ECE program. The reported concerns related to paper work or busy work was significantly higher for ECE students than MOE. Teacher, staff, and principal support was reported significantly more often as a coping strategy by ECE students.

One of the most striking results of the qualitative data analysis was the notable lack of classroom coping strategies reported by either group. While the ECE group's percent changed in organizing and planning from 8.7% to 27.5% and there was a change in the strategy called positive discipline, these were the only two classroom coping strategies mentioned by students in either program in the study. The lack of information speaks loudly to the need to provide our students with viable coping strategies to use when in the classroom.


VanBrackle

TABLE 1 Reported Concerns Pre- and Post- Student Teaching

Focus Area Concerns

Affective Fear of failure People Family responsibility

K.SU lack of 5Upport

Parent conferences Student problems Cooperating teacher

External Money/part-time job Worry about future job Wedding plans

Physical Rest Classroom Discipline/management

ObservationlevalWIIions Plallning,lwons, units Time management Gnuiing School policy Paper work/busy work

* indicates a pre-post difference at p < .05 *"' indicates a pre-post difference at p < .0 I

Afi&ihe Look for JX!itive focus and 1i':erliB:k Farrily & significant otb::rs Friends & pees lhM:Isi1y SlgXIt

Sbdtts' !llgxJt

TC2fm, SIBft: & pincipJ1 SLWit University pqEatiCil Turena~

~ F1.ll adivitiesllrlnes IUS, rm:titatioo, & sleep Rading ~and planning

* indicates a pre-post difference at p < .05 ** indicates a pre-post difference at p < .01

ECE (n "' 69)

Pre Post 5.8 7.3 5.8 20.3 .. 2.9 13.0' 1.5 8.7 2.9 5.8 1.5 14.5 ..

11.6 11,6 7.2 8.7 0 2.9

2.9 5.8 7.3 31.9'' 11.6 26.1' 31.9 44.9 13.0 39.1'' 1.5 11.6' 4.3 8.7 2.9 11.6'

4.4 14.5* 15.9 362** 8.7 30.4** 13.0 30.4' 30.4 333 13 46.4** 15 1.5 1.5 0

10.1 17.4 1.5 4J 5.8 10.1 29 10.1 8.7 Tl.~·


MGE (n =54)

Pre Post 16.7 2.9• 14.8 9.3 1.9 13.0' 1.9 7.4 1.9 33J .. 0 7.4•

3.7 3.7 5.6 13.0 7.4 5.6 0 5.6

18.5 37.0' 9.3 16.7 14.8 so.o•• 24.1 40.7

0 18.5 .. 9.3 7.5 0 1.9

M:E (n=54)

Pte PtEt 1.9 7.4 16.7 25.9 93 203 53 25.9"' 7.4 22..2• 3.7 .20.3*' 1.9 5.6 3.7 3.7 16.7 14.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 11.1 0 3.7 1.9 16.7''

Student Teachers

Conclusions

Prior to student teaching, students were able to identify future stressors as well as coping mechanisms to deal with the stressors. Both the stressors and coping mechanisms they identified were fairly limited in scope. Their inability to identify a broad range of stressors, and appropriate coping mechanisms to a wide variety of situations, creates the strong potential for dramatic contradictions between perceived expectations and the reality of the first teaching experience.

Prior to student teaching, students were not accurate in predicting their levels of stress. Early Childhood Education majors overestimated their levels of stress while the middle grades students underestimated their stress levels. Ho·wever, the reported perceived stress levels during student teaching measured with a standardized instrument were consistent with those of experienced teachers.

While there are very few significant differences in predicted and actual reported stress, there were changes in what students predicted would be stressful and what they reported as stressful. Most notable was the increased nwnber of students who identified classroom issues as stressful after student teaching.

Implications The results of this study demonstrate that student teachers

do experience stress that is very similar in intensity to that of experienced teachers. Some of these stressors can be addressed within the scope of teacher education programs through a variety of methods, including program or course redesign or revision.

A first step should be an investigation of the policies and procedures of the university that create problems and concerns for student teachers. For example, many universities, for a variety of reasons, limit the number of locations in which students complete their student teaching experience. Either identifying and


VanBrackle

publicizing the sites available well before student teaching or expanding the number of sites may allow students to be better able to address some of the key stressors, especially related to family prior to student teaching.

Preparing cooperating and supervising teachers to work effectively in a mentoring role.

Professional supervisors need to understand the sources of stress for student teachers so that activities can be developed to address these sources. Supervisors must also realize that they are potentially a source of stress because initially they may be unfamiliar with the student teacher. They are also involved in the last stage of student teacher development with higher stakes than previous field experiences.

The importance and complexities of supervision as a shared responsibility among the departments at the university and among the P-12 colleagues must be reinforced. This is _particularly important as new partners not previous involved in student teaching or field supervision become involved in the supervision process. Certainly, the addition of another perspective through the increased use of adjuncts adds yet another person in the supervision process and can lead to noticeable increases in stress among all involved in the student teaching expenence.

Specific examples, based on the results of this study, of ways to lessen stress levels for student teachers include:

Inform students of the student teaching placements in a timely manner.

Prior to student teaching, help students develop strategies for self-evaluation of teaching as well as planning.

· Identify and name personal concerns related to student teaching (teacher concern checklist).

· Develop strategies/activities that address their individual


Student Teachers

concerns and identify ways to seek help if needed. This would be an excellent starting point for the process of self-reflection as students increasingly take on more of the teaching role.

· Develop interpersonal and collaborative skills to increase professionalism, communication, and working with others. Student teachers may be working with a team of teachers or may have multiple placements.

· Obtain biographical sketches about cooperating and supervising teachers as well as contextual information about the school site (school report card data). This will help students to understand the culture of the school to which they are assigned.

· Set up a network of friends and resources that can help students with coping mechanisms. Other resources may include workshops related on how to handle some of the stressors of teaching.

· During student teaching, students need to continue to develop their skills and coping mechanisms.

Share their concerns and experiences in a risk-free environment. Often stressors are very personal and difficult for students to discuss.

Develop and demonstrate professional behaviors that are consistent with the contextual demands of the school site.

· Become a time-management expert through prioritizing professional and life demands (weddings).

Finally, all contributors involved in student teaching, including the preservice teacher, the cooperating teacher, and the college supervisor, must accept student teaching as a growing and learning process. Students should not be expected to plan and teach excellent lessons on the first try. Many students are crushed when first given feedback that includes needed improvements

I


VanBracl(le

because they fail to interpret their student teaching experience as a learning time. Accepting student teaching as a growing and developing process will help all involved appreciate the difficult path to becoming a professional.

References

Abernathy, S., Manera, R., & Wright, R. E. (1985). What stresses student teachers most. The Clearing House, 58(8), 361-362

Bradley, R. C. (1984). Taking stress out of student teaching. The Clearing House, 58( 1 ), 18-21.

Baxter, A. (1996). Combining quantitative and qualitative methods to improve the research of clinical preparation. (Eric Document Reproduction Services ED 404 356).

Calhoun, S. (1986). Are our future teachers prepared for _the stress that lies ahead? The Clearing House, 60(4), 178-79.

Eskridge, D., & Coker, D. (1985). Teacher stress: Symptoms, causes, and management techniques. The Clearing House, 58, 387-90.

Fimian, M. J. (1988). Teacher Stress Inventory. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing Co.

Ford, C. ( 1992, October). Student teachers , anticipated concerns: Are they justified? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Georgia Association for Childhood Education International, Athens, Georgia.

Gold, Y. (1984). Burnout: A major problem for the teaching profession. Education, 104, 271-74.

Hourcade, J., Parette, H., McCormack, T. (1988). Stress sources among student teachers. The Clearing House, 61(8), 347-50.

Qualitative Solutions and Research Pty Ltd. (1995). Q.S.R. NUD.JST Revision 3.0.5. Victoria, Australia: Author.

Sl GATEways Volume Xlll (I) FalllOOO Teacher Education

Student Teachers

Renick, P. ( 1996). Influences on the development of three preservice special educators: A case study. (Eric Document Reproduction Services ED 406 807).

Womack, S., (1983). Suggestions from student teachers. (Eric Document Reproduction Services ED 240 050).

Wassermann, S. (1999). Shazam! You're a teacher: Facing the illusory quest for certainty

GATEways to Teac:her Educ:ation 53


Successful Cooperative Learning Strategies for Teacher Educators

Carol VanZile-Tams en

Abstract

Cooperative learning strategies are an effective way to encourage meaningful/earning, as well as social and emotional development. A teacher using cooperative learning strategies successfully has an important tool for achieving at least six of the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (JNTASC) Standards. To use cooperative learning strategies effectively, pre-service teachers need effective role models. Teacher educators can serve as those role models by incorporating cooperative learning into their own classes. The present paper outlines practical suggestions for teacher educators concerning the successful adoption of cooperative learning strategies.

When cooperative learning is implemented successfully, students take an active role in their learning. Because the information is made meaningful, opportunities for practice and overlearning are provided, and students get immediate feedback from peers, material learned in a group setting can be learned at a much higher level than that learned through direct instruction (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; MacGregor, 1990; Slavin, 1995). Many colleges of education have adopted the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) Standards to guide teacher preparation programs (State University of West Georgia College of Education, 1999). The effective use


VanZile-Tamsen

of cooperative learning strategies is a 21st century skill that can help tomorrow's teacher achieve the following INT ASC standards:

2 demonstrate an understanding of how students learn and · develop and can provide learning opportunities that support student learning and individual development;

3 demonstrate an understanding of individual differences in students' learning and create instructional opportunities adapted to diverse learners. including students with multicultural backgrounds and special learning needs;

4 accept responsibility for monitoring and managing student learning including developing a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students' development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills;

5 document use of strategies for individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment which encourages positive social interactions and promotes active engagement in learning;

6 document use of knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction for learning;

8 document use of formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate the students' academic. social, and physical development (State University of West Georgia College of Education, 1999, pp. 8-9).

However, to use cooperative learning strategies effectively, new teachers must experience cooperative learning for themselves, model college educators who use such strategies, and have opportunities to practice these strategies in their methods courses and field placements. The purpose of this article is to provide

56 GATEways Volume XIJI (I) FalllOOO Teacher Education

Cooperative Learning Strategies

strategies for teacher educators to effectively model cooperative learning strategies. The following topics are addressed: what makes learning cooperative?; theoretical support for using cooperative learning strategies; cautions for using cooperative learning strategies; and suggestions for incorporating cooperative learning into teacher education classes.

What is Cooperative Learning?

A common misconception about cooperative learning is that it occurs whenever students are put into groups and allowed to discuss class concepts (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). However, cooperative learning is much more than that. In cooperative learning, students work in small groups to complete academic tasks (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Slavin, 2000). This definition implies that the group has been designed to achieve a particular lesson objective, and student interaction should be goal directed. In addition, this definition implies that the students are attempting to accomplish goals shared by all group members, and that the achievement of these goals will be beneficial to all individuals. Cooperative learning, then, can be defined as the use of small groups working together to achieve shared learning goals in such a way that all members achieve to the best of their potential. MacGregor (1990, p. 20) defines collaborative learning as "active learning that takes place publicly, in partnership with others." This active learning involves such cognitive processes as interpreting, questioning, creating, synthesizing, inventing, doubting, comparing, making connections, puzzling, etc.

For true cooperative learning to occur and be successful, several essential elements must be incorporated into the structure of the groups (Johnson & Johnson~ 1999; MacGregor, 1990; Slavin, 1995). The most successfUl cooperative groups (those that help students achieve academic objectives and promote academic achievement) include the following characteristics:


VanZile-Tamsen

mixed-ability grouping, assigned roles/tasks, individual incentive, and group rewards. Mixed-ability grouping encourages a greater degree of learning than heterogeneous grouping, since lowachieving students learn more when they are grouped with middle- and high-achieving students than when they are grouped together (Slavin, 1995; 2000).

Assigning each group member a role or task that must be completed fosters positive interdependence in which each group member is made accountable for material/skills covered during the activity. In addition, participation of all members in completing the group product is encouraged (MacGregor, 1990; Slavin, 1995). Students will be more committed to the group process if the success of an individual is dependent upon the success of the group (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; MacGregor, 1990; Slavin, 1995). According to Johnson and Johnson (1999, p . 5), "Cooperative efforts result in participants recognizing that all group members share a common fate, strive for mutual benefit so that all group members gain from each other's efforts, recognize that one's performance is mutually caused by oneself and one' s colleagues, empower each other, and feel proud and celebrate jointly when a group member is recognized for achievement."

Support for Cooperative Learning

Several theories suggest that cooperative learning should result in positive learning outcomes (Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Slavin, 1995). Cognitive learning theories, motivation theory, and social learning theory will be discussed here.

Cognitive Learning Theories Recent thinking on cooperative learning emphasizes the

equilibration (assimilation and accommodation) of new knowledge outlined by Piaget as the primary reason why it is

S8 GATEways Volume Xnl (I) Fall2000 Teacher Education


important to use these strategies to promote meaningful learning. Such authors as Fosnot (1993b), O'Banion (1997), and Tishman, Perkins, and Jay (1995) suggest that cooperative learning strategies help instructors promote the development of a community of learners in each classroom in which learning and discovery are valued processes. Social interaction within this community will encourage students to equilibrate new information with prior knowledge which will promote reorganization of knowledge structures (Davis & Sumara~ 1997; F osnot, 1996).

Another theory which emphasizes the social nature of learning and suggests that cooperative groups will promote meaningful learning is the cognitive development theory of Vygotsky. According to Vygotsky, learning is socially mediated (Rogoff, 1990). Through interactions with others in a learning environment, students are able to internalize verbal interactions concerning knowledge and skills. This internalization helps them acquire the knowledge and skills themselves. Group interaction also provides the opportunity for scaffolding, especially when groups are heterogeneous with respect to ability. Low-achieving students in a particular subject area can model and receive verbal assistance from high-achieving group members. Gradually, this assistance from group members will be needed less as lowachieving students become more capable of achieving on their own.

According to information processing theory, students will remember meaningful information for the long term (Mayer, 1996; Shuell, 1996; Slavin, 1995). In addition, students are better able to access learned information when it is encoded with a variety of cues (Mayer, 1996). Cooperative learning experiences foster both elaboration and the encoding of meaningful cues. By being active in their own learning and trying to understand a concept in a group setting, students learn the infonnation at a more meaningful level. At the same time, the nature of the


VanZUe-Tamsen

cooperative learning setting ensures that there are many situational retrieval cues which are encoded during the learning process, facilitating later retrieval of that information.

Motivation Theories Slavin (1995) addresses the motivational aspects of

cooperative learning methods. He suggests that cooperative groups eliminate the harmful kind of competition often stressed in classrooms. Competition for achievement rewards can have several detrimental effects. First, students come to relish classmates' failure since their own success becomes easier. Second, mediocrity allows everyone to stay competitive and is thus valued. Finally, students who achieve at high levels are viewed negatively by the peer group. A competitive goal structure is a poor motivator for low-achieving students in particular since they come to believe they cannot be successful and devalue academic learning. Cooperative goal structures

. encourage students to support others' success, value cooperation, and have an interest in learning material at a high level.

Bergin (1999) suggests that cooperative learning can foster interest in course content. Students have strong social goals, and group work may help students achieve these goals. This social aspect may be the most important factor contributing to the success of cooperative learning approaches. In spite of the fact that teachers often try to group students away from friends, there is evidence to suggest that students perform better and have higher achievement when grouped with friends.

Social Learning Theory Cooperative, learning activities help teach students

important social ~d teamwork skills, such as division of labor, coming to consensus, and resolving conflicts (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Slavin, I 995). Cooperative learning methods allow a teacher to create a positive, pro~social climate in which

60 GATEways Volume XUI (I) Fall 2000 Teacher Education


students are encouraged to model their peers to learn new skills, to learn how to better interact with others, and to become more comfortable participating in the learning setting. In a review of research on cooperative groups, Slavin (1995) reports that cooperative learning methods can promote positive relations among different ethnic groups, acceptance of students with special needs who are included in the regular education classroom, feelings of self-esteem and the development of an internal locus of control, the development of peer norms that support high achievement, greater time on task and fewer behavior problems, feelings of liking for classmates, class, and school, altruistic behaviors, and the ability to see things from multiple perspectives.

Cautions for Using Cooperative Learning

Time Intensive Instructors must take a great deal of time in the planning

and organization of group activities if they are to be successful (MacGregor, 1990). Instructors must have a plan for everything from grouping students to assessing what was learned in the group activity. In addition, when these cooperative learning activities are implemented, they require a great deal of class time to complete, with great variability in the amount of time that different groups require (Airasian & Walsh, 1997). Lecture remains the most efficient way to cover content.

Intended Objectives Not Always Achieved Not only is it easy for groups to get off track, but it is

possible that they could be learning the wrong information. If the group agrees on an incorrect answer, they will learn that answer and believe it to be true. Information learned incorrectly is very difficult to reteach (Shuell, 1996). In addition, groups learn

GATEways ro Teacher Education 61

VanZile-Tamsen

things that the teacher does not anticipate or even desire them to learn (Davis & Swnara, 1997; VanZile-Tamsen, 1999). This learning may be valuable but may take the group away from the original assigned task. In this case, the instructor may need to backtrack and assist students in learning the intended objectives.

Some Concepts Are Better Learned in a Rote Fashion Students can learn meaningfully even when other

instructional strategies are used. Consequently, some concepts should be taught, and learned, in a purely rote and mechanical way (Airasian & Walsh, 1997). For example, the multiplication tables need to be learned in a rote fashion in order to make them automatic for use in higher-level mathematical operations. Cooperative learning would not be the most efficient method to teach multiplication tables.

Group Activities Do Not Always Ensure Active Minds Depending upon the task that students are attempting to

complete in a group, they can be more or less engaged (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Students may be discussing their opinions very animatedly in the group setting, but may not be learning the concepts intended by the instructor. In addition, some students may rush through the assigned tasks by doing them with as little thought as possible. Finally, students can get off task and begin to discuss everything but what they should be discussing.

Slackers/Faking Participation A very common complaint among students is that the

group contains a "slacker" who does not pull his/her weight (VanZile-Tamsen, 1999). Even when roles are assigned in the group, students can try to get out of completing their own assignment, knowing that group members who want a good grade and/or care about the learning task will take care of it. In addition, group members can act like they are participating when



they are actually doing very little that relates to the assigned task (Slavin, 1995).

Students Do Not Always See the Value Some students are more likely to value cooperative

learning experiences than others. For example, Treisman ( 1985) found that there are cultural differences in terms of cooperative learning. Chinese college students routinely formed study groups in which they shared knowledge and confirmed expectations for the class, asked questions, critiqued work, assisted with homework, and shared information related to common interests. African American students believed that self .. reliance was one of their greatest strengths. Consequently, they did not view group studying as a valuable activity in which to engage.

Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) suggest that women will generally value cooperative experiences more than men and learn more, while VanZile-Tamsen (1999) found that students enrolled in early childhood and middle grades education valued groups mixed by certification level more than those enrolled in secondary or special education. Johnson and Johnson (1999) suggest that it is not only students who may devalue cooperative learning methods. Higher education colleagues and administrators may also devalue the work of instructors who use cooperative learning methods since there is still a strong cultural bias toward competition.

Not Consistent With All Students' Views of Learning/Teaching Students in teacher education programs enroll with strong

feelings about what constitutes teaching and learning (Fosnot, 1993a; Holt & Johnston, 1989). Students who believe that there is not one objective knowledge, who believe that they can learn something of value from peers, and who believe that the instructor is not the single knowledge authority may have a better experience in cooperative gr~ups (King & Baxter Magolda,


VanZile-Tamsen

1996). In addition, higher education colleagues and administrators may have a strong view of teaching which involves the teacher as the sole distributor of knowledge, and cooperative learning activities do not support this view. As a result, instructors who use cooperative learning at the higher education level may not receive the respect and rewards they deserve.

Present Challenges for Classroom Management Since cooperative learning activities require room for

students to work together, sufficient time to complete the activity, and freedom to move about and talk with each other, cooperative learning can present a challenge for classroom management. The structures of most colleges (50 minute classes, large class sizes, and fiXed seating arrangements) do not foster effective group work (Johnson & Johnson, 1999).

Suggestions for Structuring Cooperative Learning

1. Plan ahead! Cooperative learning strategies will be most effective

when the group activity is well-planned in advance (MacGregor, 1990). All aspects need to be worked out ahead of time, from how students will be grouped, to what each person's role will be, to what product will result, to the methods to ensure accountability, to the evaluation of individual and group accomplishment. In addition, students should be informed of these expectations and guidelines before they begin the activity. These guidelines can be communicated to the students by preparing written directions for the group's activity, including a description of each person's role in the group and how their performance will be evaluated. (An example of such guidelines is shown in the Appendix.) Finally, the instructor should have a back-up activity in case the group activity flops.

64 GATEways Volume Xlll (I) Fall 2000 Teacber Education


2. Group students strategically. Many of the participation problems related to cooperative

learning can be avoided when the instructor has a clear rationale for grouping students (Slavin, 1995). In addition to trying to group high- and low-achieving students together, the instructor should separate close friends and members of cliques and place class isolates with accepting students. Another helpful suggestion is to ~ix non-traditional with traditional college students. Having students count off to form groups is better than allowing students to choose their own groups, but instructors can be even more strategic in the groupings to foster participation to the greatest extent possible. In classes containing students from various teacher education programs, grouping can sometimes be performed by certification area or by mixing certification areas. For example, if the groups are to identify relevant discipline procedures for the students they will be teaching, grouping by certification area will be most helpful. However, if the purpose o the activity is to explore accommodations for students with special needs, mixed certification groups, with at least one special education major in each group, may be most helpful.

3. Build in accountability. Each group member must be accountable for the

information covered in the group activity (Slavin, 1995). Individuals will be more likely to be active group members if they know they must be able to remember this information or perform this skill at a later date or if they know that their participation will be evaluated by other group members. Requiring groups to hand in a product of their efforts is only one step toward accountability. Including the content covered in the activity on exams or quizzes is another step. Assigning each group member to a unique role can also encourage accountability. In addition, group members can rate the performance of each group member, including their


VanZile-Tams en

own (MacGregor, 1990). These ratings ·can then be used by the instructor to adjust individual grades.

4. Encourage positive interdependence. Each person in the group should be assigned a unique role

to foster collaboration and cooperation (Slavin, 1995). Examples of roles are leader, researcher, secretary, presenter, and timekeeper. Only the instructor's creativity will limit the possible roles that can be used. In addition, group members should in some way be rewarded for the performance of the group as a whole. Using a group grade to reflect performance of groups is one possibility. Offering bonus points for groups whose members have the highest average test score is another.

5. Spend time teaching cooperative skills. Since most students have only experienced competition

for grades and rewards, they must learn how to work together as a team (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; MacGregor, 1990). As a result, many students need to learn how to depend on others, how to come to consensus, and how to resolve conflicts. An instructor who is interested in using cooperative learning activities may first need to do some team-building exercises to build these skills. In addition, the instructor should provide students with explicit nonacademic guidelines for the groups (e.g., does everyone in the group need to agree on all answers, etc.). One example of a teambuilding exercise is the team scavenger hunt (Boes from VanZileTamsen, Boes, & Nietfeld, 1999). In this exercise, the class is divided into four-member teams and must collect a variety of information/objects (e.g., a pencil, a college catalog, etc.), but each team has different directions. One team is told that all four members must collect each object/piece of information. Another team is told they can divide into pairs to collect each piece. Another team is told they can work individually to collect the pieces. After the exercise, students discuss how efficient they

66 GATEways Volume XDI (I) Fall 2000 Teacher Education


were as teams, and through this discussion, come to realize that the most efficient team is the one who divides up the work individually.

6. When beginning, use for non-instructional activities. The instructor who is a novice at cooperative learning

activities may find the adoption of these activities easier if they are initially used for review and practice rather than for teaching course objectives (VanZile-Tamsen, 2000). For example, they can be used to assist in the activation of prior knowledge before a lesson begins. The instructor can form small groups and have students brainstorm everything they know about the topic in a limited amount of time. For example, ifPiaget will be discussed in a higher-level course, students can brainstorm in groups everything they know about Piaget from earlier courses. This type of group activity is brief, but allows the instructor to practice grouping strategies and monitoring group interactions.

After a lesson has been presented, the instructor can assign groups a review activity that reinforces these objectives. For example, after a unit on cognitive learning theories, students can work together in groups to identify the concepts they believe will be most valuable to them as teachers, as well as concepts that they still do not understand. Finally, reviews for tests/exams or other types of assessments can be completed in small groups. For example, students can work in groups to make sure they can answer all items on a study guide. Once the instructor gains practice in structuring cooperative learning activities and students gain practice completing them, cooperative groups can be used to teach course concepts (see Appendix for example).

7. Practice monitoring group activities. As these initial cooperative learning activities are

implemented, instructors need to practice monitoring these activities (VanZile-Tamsen, 2000). Since most instructors will

GATEways to Tea~her Education 67

VanZUe-Tamsen

have at least four small groups in their classes, monitoring the activities of all groups can be a challenge. The instructor will need to·be in at least four places at one time, answering questions, helping groups get back on task, and seeing that activities are completed in a timely manner. Such monitoring is a skill that will improve with practice.

Conclusions

Cooperative learning strategies can assist instructors in helping students learn content more meaningfully and at a deeper level (MacGregor, 1990). In addition, students will experience cognitive, as well as non-cognitive, gains (Slavin, 1995). As preservice teachers experience cooperative learning in their teacher education classes, they will model strategies they can use in their own teaching positions to impact the learning and social/ emotional development of their students. Making the move to cooperative learning strategies can involve a considerable shift for both instructor and student (MacGregor, 1990). Students need to become active problem-solvers rather than passive recipients of information, while instructors need to relinquish their positions of authority in the classroom. In addition, instructors may need to rethink the number of topics covered in a course, as well as evaluation methods. Finally, instructors need to continually · evaluate use of collaborative learning to ensure they remain good role models for the pre-service teachers they teach (MacGregor, 1990).

References

Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 444-449.



Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Bergin, D. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34, 87-98.

Davis, B., & Sumara, D. J. (1997). Cognition, complexity, and teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1 ), 105-124.

Fosnot, C. T. (1993a). Learning to teach, teaching to learn: The Center for Constructivist Teaching .. Teacher Preparation Project Teaching Education, 5(2), 69-78.

Fosnot, C. T. (1993b). Rethinking science education: A defense of Piagetian constructivism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1189-1201.

Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism. Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 8-33). New York: Teachers College Press.

Holt, L., & Johnston, M. ( 1989). Graduate education and teachers' understandings: A collaborative case study of change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(2), 81-92.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

King, P.M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1996). A developmental perspective on learning. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 163-173.

MacGregor, J. (1990, Summer). Collaborative learning: Shared inquiry as a process of reform. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 42, 19-30.

Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learners as information processors: Legacies and limitations of educational psychology's second metaphor. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 151-161.


VanZile-Tams ell

O'Banion, J. (1997). A learning college for the 21st century. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.

Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 726-764). New York: Simon & Schuster MacMillan.

Slavin, R. E. (2000). Educational Psychology: Theory and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

State University of West Georgia College of Education (1999). Faculty handbook. Carrollton, GA: Author.

Tishman, S., Perkins, D. N., & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Treisman, P.M. (1985). A study of the mathematics performance of black students at the University of California, Berkely. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkely.

VanZile-Tamsen, C. ( 1999). Transforming graduate education: Lessons from educational psychology. Research in the Schools, 6, 32-43.

VanZile-Tamsen, C. (2000, March). Developing successful cooperative learning strategies for P-18. Paper Presented at the Spring Conference of the Georgia Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators, Jekyll Island, GA.

VanZile-Tamsen, C., Boes, S. R., & Nietfeld, J. (1999, November). Closing the Gap: Using lessons learned from educational psychology to prepare counselors and teachers. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Education Trust, Washington, D.C.


- -Cooperative Learning Strategies

Appendix Group Activity:

The Impact of Individual Differences on Achievement

Chapters 4 and 12 concern student differences, how they impact achievement, and how teachers can best deal with these differences to promote the achievement of all students. The content in these two chapters will be presented to the entire class by subgroups who will become experts on their assigned sections.

1. Every group member has a role to play in completing today's assignment:

Leader: gets group organized and makes sure that group stays on task. Secretary: records important information. Time-Keeper: makes sure that group is completing assigned task in designated time and makes sure that presentation is kept within 6-1 0 minute time limit. Researcher: responsible for checking accuracy of information and asking instructor questions. Presentation Coordinator: responsible for organizing group to develop an interesting, informative presentation for the rest of the class.

2. Once you get into groups, everyone should read pages 112-114 and 429-431 in the text. These pages provide an introduction to the topics groups will be researching.

3. Each group member should read your group's assigned section and identify (highlight, underline, take notes) important information that all teachers should know. The group reading assigmnents are as follow: Group 1 : The Impact of Culture and Socioeconomic Status on Learning (pp.112-116)


VanZile-Tamsen

Group 2: The Impact of Race and Etlmicity on Achievement (pp. 117-123) Group 3: Language Differences (pp. 124-127) Group 4: Gender Differences (pp. 127-131) Group 5: Intelligence (pp. 131-139) Group 6: Multicultural Education (pp. 139"144) Group 7: "What is Special Education? (pp. 449-460) Group 8: Mainstreaming and Inclusion (pp. 460-470)

4. After everyone has completed the above step, all group members should work together to come to a consensus about:

a. the information that is most important and should be included in a presentation on the topic;

b. real examples to illustrate the important concepts; and c. strategies that teachers can use to deal with individual

differences in this area.

5. Using what you have learned in this class about fostering meaningful, long-term learning~ develop a presentation of this information for the rest of the class. The presentation should be brief ( 6-1 0 minutes), interesting, and practical (i.e., information that teachers can really use). Be creative and use any method or media you choose to present the information (e.g., PowerPoint presentations, skits, handson activities, demonstrations, etc.).

6. Make your presentation to the class and turn in a group outline which ·summarizes the presentation and gives a brief description of each member's contribution to the fmal project.

72 GATEways Volume XIII (I) Fall 2000 Teacher Edutation

Notes


Documents

GATEways 2000 (Volume 13 Issue 1)