Journal of Teacher Action Research 1 JTAR · several strategies that assist students in managing and shaping their own behavior (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). The implementation

JournalofTeacherActionResearch1

JournalofTeacherActionResearch-Volume5,Issue2,2019,practicalteacherresearch.com,ISSN#2332-2233

©JTAR.AllRightsReserved

JTAR EDITORS

JTAR JournalofTeacherActionResearchVolume5,Issue2,2019

ProceduralChecklistInterventiontoIncreaseMathAssignmentCompletion 4AmongStudentswithHighIncidenceDisabilitiesMartinRiosCalliLewisChiuParallelConferencing:Co-ViewingAndCo-AssessingTeacherCandidates’Videos 22StephanieKotch-Jester ElizabethSoslau VickiGoettel BridgetDudaNicholasBellDeirdreLillyReflections:ExploringStudentWritingSelf-EfficacyIntheOnlineEnvironment 39SharonicaNelsonEngagingEducationMajorsToEmbraceDiversityThroughExpressiveArts 56AnnetteMohanGraceJepkemboiReshapingPractice:AnActionResearchProjectExploringWritingInstruction 77KateRollMargaretVaughnWritinginMathematicstoIncreaseStudentUnderstanding 95AshleyHarlanPerceptionsofFlexibleSeating 120MaryEllenSorrell

JTAR AbouttheJournal

Foundedin2013,theJournalofTeacherActionResearch(ISSN:2332-2233)isapeer-reviewedonlinejournalindexedwithEBSCOthatseekspracticalresearchthatcanbeimplementedinPre-Kindergarten

throughPost-Secondaryclassrooms.Theprimaryfunctionofthisjournalistoprovideclassroomteachersandresearchersameansforsharingclassroompractices.

Thejournalacceptsarticlesforpeer-reviewthatdescribeclassroompracticewhichpositivelyimpactsstudentlearning.Wedefineteacheractionresearchasteachers(atalllevels)studyingtheirpracticeand/ortheirstudents'learninginamethodicalwayinordertoinformclassroompractice.Articlessubmittedtothejournalshoulddemonstrateanactionresearchfocuswithintenttoimprovethe

author’spractice.

EditorialTeam

Co-EditorsGilbertNaizer,Ph.D. AprilSanders,Ph.D.

TexasA&MUniversity-Commerce SpringHillCollege

AssociateEditorsLauraIsbell,Ph.D. TamiMorton,Ph.D. SusanWilliams

TexasA&MUniversity-Commerce TexasA&MUniversity-CommerceTexasA&MUniversity-Commerce

ProductionEditorandWebmaster

ChaseYoung,Ph.D.SamHoustonStateUniversity

www.practicalteacherresearch.com

THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 4

JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume5,Issue2,2019,,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights

PROCEDURALCHECKLISTINTERVENTIONTOINCREASEMATHASSIGNMENTCOMPLETIONAMONGSTUDENTSWITHHIGHINCIDENCEDISABILITIESMartinRios

DelanoAdultSchool

CalliLewisChiu

CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fullerton

AbstractFederallawmandatesthatstudentswithdisabilitiesbeeducatedintheleastrestrictiveenvironmenttopromoteequalaccesstothegeneraleducationcurriculum.Studentswithdisabilitieswhodemonstratechallengingbehaviorsingeneraleducationclassroomsmaypresentgeneraleducationteacherswithuniquechallengesiftheteachersareunpreparedtodifferentiateinstructionforthesestudents.Thisstudyinvestigatedtheeffectsofaproceduralchecklistonratesoftaskcompletionamongthreestudentswithhighincidencedisabilitieswhoexhibitedsignificantchallengingbehaviorinageneraleducationclassroomsetting.Theinterventionwascorrelatedwithincreasedratesoftaskcompletionforthethreeparticipants.

Keywords:teacheractionresearch,specialeducation,highincidentdisabilities,self-monitoring,behaviormanagement

Introduction

Federallegislationmandatesthatstudentswithdisabilitiesbeeducatedintheleastrestrictiveenvironment(IDEA,2004);therefore,anincreasingnumberofstudentswithdisabilitiesarebeingeducatedingeneraleducationsettings(Carson,2015;Kurth,Lyon,&Shogren,2015).Thisscenariocanbechallengingforgeneraleducationteacherswhomayfinditdifficulttodifferentiateinstructionforthesestudents.Inadditiontodifferentiatingacademiccontent,manyteachersstruggletoimplementeffectivebehaviormanagementstrategiesforstudentswithdisabilitieswhoexhibitchallengingbehaviors(Kostewicz,Ruhl,&Kubina,2008).



LiteratureReview

Studentswithdisabilitieswhoexhibitchallengingbehaviorsdemonstratelowlevelsofhighschoolcompletionandlowgradepointaverages(Sutherland&Singh,2004;Wagner,1995;Wood&Cronin,1999).Studentswhocontinuallydisruptclassordistractotherstudentsfromcompletingtheirassignmentsfrequentlyencounterdisciplinaryconsequences:beingsenttothedisciplineoffice,suspension,expulsion,orplacementatalternativelearningsettings(Gable,Bullock,&Evans,2006).Notonlyaresuspensionandexpulsionexclusionarydisciplinarypractices,theyfailtopromoteprosocialdecisionmaking(Cameron&Sheppard,2006).Furthermore,themeasuresmaynotdissuadethestudentsfromengaginginsuchbehaviors(Maag,2002).

Whenstudentswithdisabilitiesareplacedinrestrictivesettingsduetotheiractions,theydonothaveadequateaccesstothegeneraleducationcurriculumandhavediminishedopportunitiestoengagewithpeerswithoutdisabilities(Turnbull,Huerta,&Stowe,2006).Thelackofacademicandsocialresourcesmayresultinasubstandardeducationwithincreasedratesofcoursefailureandpoortestscores(Kochhar-Bryant&Greene,2009).Theremovalofthestudentsfromtheirtypicalclassroomsdecreasestheiracademicperformancebecausetheyspendlesstimereceivingrigorousacademicinstruction(McDaniel&Flower,2015).Researchsuggeststhatstudentswithchallengingbehaviorswhoarenottaughthowtomanagetheirbehaviorinasystematicmanneraremorelikelytobeunsuccessfulinacademicsettings(Nelson,Benner,Lane,&Smith,2004;Reid,Gonzalez,Nordness,Trout,&Epstein,2004).

Studentswhoexhibitchallengingbehaviorsmaydemonstratethesebehaviorsasaprotectiveshieldfromtheconstantacademicfailurestheyencounter(Gableetal.2006).Thebehaviorsmaybedisplayedtoconcealstudents’frustrationanddifficultyincomprehendingacademiccontentandtoavoidbeinglabeledderogatorytermsduetofailingmasteracademictasks.Therefore,thedevelopmentandimplementationofproceduresthatsupportacademicsuccessandsubsequentlyminimizedisplaysofchallengingbehaviorsareessential(Denune,Hawkins,Donovan,McCoy,Hall,&Moeder,2015).

Teachersdevelopandimplementclassroommanagementproceduresandstrategiestocreatepositivelearningenvironmentsandtosupportstudentsinreachingtheiracademicpotential(Denuneetal.,2015;Kostewiczetal.,2008).Forexample,atokeneconomysystemisaclassroommanagementstrategyinwhichstudentsaregiventokenswhendesiredbehaviorsaredemonstrated.Thetokensarelaterexchangedforreinforcements(e.g.,food,toys)orclassroomprivileges(e.g.,computertime;Alberto&Troutman,2006).Educatorsmustprovideclearexpectationsandutilizestrategiesconsistentlytominimizebehavioralproblems.



Teachersmusthaveaccesstoproactivestrategiestoassiststudentswithdisabilitieswhodemonstratechallengingbehaviorstosupporttheiracademicprogress(Houchens,Zhang,Davis,Niu,Chon,&Miller,2017).Researchindicatesthataneffectivewaytopromoteacademicproficiencyamongstudentswithdisabilitiesistoimplementself-monitoringstrategies(SMSs;Amato-Zech,Hoff,&Doepke,2006;Menzies,Lane,&Lee,2009;Sheffield&Waller,2010).SMSscanbeindividualizedtoreinforcepositivebehavior,chunkclassroomassignmentsintomanageablepieces,encourageon-taskbehavior,and/orprovidestudentswithbreaksafterdesignatedperiodsoftaskengagement.

Self-MonitoringStrategies(SMS).TheimplementationofSMSscanimprovestudents’behaviorandincreaseacademicprogression(Shulze,2016).Self-managementencompassesseveralstrategiesthatassiststudentsinmanagingandshapingtheirownbehavior(Cooper,Heron,&Heward,2007).TheimplementationofSMSsinvolvesseveralcomponentsthatareessentialwhenteachingstudentshowtomonitorandchangetheirbehavior.TheprimaryobjectiveofSMSsistoteachstudentshowtoassess,observe,andidentifygradualchangesincurrentbehaviorthatcorrelatestothetargetbehavior(Shulze,2016).SMSsareonetypeofevidence-basedinterventionthatcanhelpstudentsincreasetaskcompletionanddecreaseincidentsofchallengingbehavior.

SMSsincorporatemulti-stepproceduresthatteachstudentstorecordwhenabehaviordoesordoesnotoccur(Mace,Belfiore,&Hutchinson,2001).ASMSrequiresthestudenttorecordtheirperformanceonatargetbehaviorbasedonpre-determineddefinitionsandcriteria(Rafferty&Raimondi,2010).Theteacherandthestudentworkcollaborativelytosetgoalsrelatedtoatargetbehavior(Menziesetal.,2009).Forexample,theteacherandstudentmaydeterminewhatisanacceptablenumberofundesiredbehavioroccurrencesthatthestudentcandemonstrateandwhatreinforcementswillbeimplementedformeetingthegoal.TheSMSassiststhestudentinbeingawareofthechallengingbehaviors.SMSshavebeeneffectiveforstudentswithmanydifferentcategoriesofdisabilitiesandforstudentsrangingfrompre-schoolagetohighschoolage(Lewis,Hudson,Richter,&Johnson,2004).TheuseofanSMSisbeneficialforstudentsthatexhibitchallengingbehaviorsbecausethestudentslearntobeself-reliantandresponsiblefortheirownactions.Also,studentscangeneralizeandmaintaindesiredlevelsofbehaviorsinthegeneraleducationclassroomwhentheyuseSMSs(Lewisetal.,2004;McConnell,1999).

Researchsupportsthatself-monitoringinterventionsareeffectiveinreducingavarietyofchallengingbehaviors.Forexample,SMSshavebeenusedtoaddressbothdisruptiveandoff-taskbehaviors(Guereasko-Moore,DuPaul,&White,2007;Levendoski&Cartledge,2000),engagementindirectinstruction(Brooks,Todd,Tofflemoyer,&Horner,2003),andfollowingclassrules(Agran,Sinclair,Alper,Cavin,Wehmeyer,&Hughes,2005).SMSshavealsobeenassociatedwithimprovementsinon-taskbehavior(Smith&Sugai,2000;Stewart



&McLaughlin,1992),increasesinworkcompletion(Brooksetal.,2003),anddecreasesintalkingout(Smith&Sugai,2000).Ifastudentisexhibitingchallengingbehaviors,suchasbeingoff-task,anSMScanbeusedtoguidethestudentthroughcompletingindependentworkorremainingfocusedduringdirectinstruction.SMSsareevidence-basedinterventionsthatcanbeimplementedinthegeneraleducationsettingtoincreaseratesofassignmentcompletionforstudentswithchallengingbehaviors(Amato-Zechetal.,2006;Menziesetal.,2009;Sheffield&Waller,2010).

Methodology

ThecurrentstudyexaminedwhetheraspecifictypeofSMS,aproceduralchecklist(PC),wascorrelatedwithincreasesinratesofassignmentcompletioninageneraleducationmathclassroom.Participantswerethreestudentswithhighincidencedisabilitieswhodemonstratedchallengingbehaviors.ThestudysoughttodetermineifthepercentageoftaskcompletionofclassroomassignmentsgiventotheparticipantsinthemathsettingincreaseduponimplementationanduseofthePC.

Participants.TheparticipantswerethreestudentsreceivingspecialeducationservicesatapublichighschoolinthesouthwesternregionoftheUnitedStates.Allparticipantswereinthetwelfthgradeandrangedinagefrom17to18yearsold.Oneparticipantqualifiedforspecialeducationservicesunderthecategoryofspecificlearningdisability(SLD).Thesecondparticipantqualifiedforspecialeducationservicesunderthecategoryofmultipledisabilities(MD)withaspeechorlanguageimpairment(SLI).Thefinalparticipantqualifiedforspecialeducationservicesunderthecategoryofotherhealthimpairment(OHI)withasecondarydisabilityofSLD.Allparticipantsattendedgeneraleducationclassesfortheentiretyoftheschoolday.Participantswereselectedforthestudybecausetheydemonstratedbehaviorsthatimpededtheirprogressionregardingassignmentcompletion,andallparticipantswerefailingtheirmathclass.

Participantsattendedamathclassdailyfor55minutes.Themodelofacademicinstructionutilizedatthishighschoolisreferredtoasthe“push-in”model.Inthismodel,thespecialeducationteacher,whoistheresearcher,providedacademicsupportinthegeneraleducationsetting,ratherthanprovidingeducationalservicestostudentswithdisabilitiesinmorerestrictive,segregatedsettings.Thespecialeducationteacher’srolewastodifferentiateinstructionforstudentsreceivingspecialeducationservicesandtodeliverexplicitdirectinstructioninsmallgroupstostudentswhoneededextraassistancewiththemathematicsconceptsbeingtaught.Thespecialeducationteacherwillbereferredtoas“theresearcher”forthedurationofthismanuscript.

Leonel.Leoneldemonstratedanintelligencequotient(IQ)scoreof83ontheKaufmanBriefIntelligenceTest-SecondEdition(Kaufman&Kaufman,2004),whichisconsideredbelow



averageincognitiveability.Leonelscoredastandardscoreof61ontheWoodcockJohnsonTestofAchievementFormB(Woodcock,McGrew,&Mather,2001)inbroadmathematicswhichisconsideredbelowaverageonmathcalculationskills,problemsolving,andtheabilitytosolvesimpleaddition,subtraction,andmultiplicationfactsquickly.LeonelqualifiedforspecialeducationservicesunderthecategoryofOHI.TheresearcherattendedLeonel’smathcourse(ConsumerMath)threetimesaweekforapproximately30minuteseachclass.Leoneldemonstrateddifficultyremainingon-taskandfollowingdirectionstosolvemathproblems.PriortotheintroductionofthePC,Leonelgotoutofhisseat,conversedwithneighbors,usedhiscellphonewithoutpermission,andoftendirectedprofanityattheteacher.Leonelwashyperactiveandappearedtoenjoyreceivingattentionbydistractinghispeers.Forexample,Leonelrandomlycalledoutnamesofhisfriends,tookpicturesofhimself,andlefthischairastheteacherwasdeliveringdirectinstruction.

Hannah.HannahdemonstratedanIQscoreof92ontheTestofNonverbalIntelligence-FourthEdition(Brown,Sherbenou,&Johnsen,2010),whichisconsideredintheaveragerangewhencomparedtothesamplegroupofpeersherage.Hannahscoredastandardscoreof68ontheWoodcockJohnsonTestofAchievementFormC(Woodcocketal.2001)inbroadmathematics,whichisconsideredbelowaverageonmathcalculationskills,problemsolving,andtheabilitytosolvesimpleaddition,subtraction,andmultiplicationfactsquickly.HannahqualifiedforspecialeducationservicesunderthecategoryofMDwithasecondarydisabilityinthecategoryofSLI.TheresearcherattendedHannah’sAlgebra1classthreetimesaweekforapproximately30minuteseachclass.PriortotheintroductionofthePC,Hannaheasilygrewdistractedin-class.Sheavertedeyecontactfromherworksheetandstaredatthewallforlongperiodsoftimeduringlecturesandindependentwork.Shetappedherfeetandfidgetedwithherhairalmostcontinuouslywhensheworkedonproblemsshedidnotunderstand.Hannahresistedhelpwhenapproachedbytheresearcherduringindependentwork.Iftheresearcherofferedherassistancewithaproblem,shestatedthatsheunderstoodwhatshewasdoing,eventhoughherresponsestotheproblemswereincorrect.Hannahwasaquietstudentandrefrainedfrominteractingwithherpeers.

Jose.JosedemonstratedanIQscoreof90ontheKaufmanBriefIntelligenceTest-2ndEdition(Kaufman&Kaufman,2004),whichisintheaveragerangeofcognitiveabilitywhencomparedtootherstudentsofthesameage.Josescoredastandardscoreof74intheWoodcockJohnsonTestofAchievementFormC(Woodcocketal.,2001)inbroadmathematics,whichisconsideredbelowaverageonmathcalculationskills,problemsolving,andtheabilitytosolvesimpleaddition,subtraction,andmultiplicationfactsquickly.JosequalifiedforspecialeducationservicesunderthecategoryofSLD.TheresearcherattendedJose’sAlgebra1classatleastthreetimesaweekforapproximately30minutesperclass.Inhismathclass,Joseengagedinasignificantamountofoff-taskconversationwithhispeersandfrequentlyrequestedpermissiontousetherestroom.Josequalifiedforspecial



educationservicesunderthecategoryofSLDinmathematics;therefore,completingbasicmathematicalprocedurestosolveproblemswasdifficultforJose.Josetooknotesduringlectures;however,hemadeitappeartotheteacherthathewasengagedinassignmentseventhoughhewasnot.Forexample,astheteacherwasdeliveringdirectinstruction,Joseoftenappearedtopayattentionbysimulatingthathewasreadingtheclasstextbook.Instead,hewouldbedrawingbehindtheworksheet.Also,whentheteachergaveJoseanassignmentandheopenedhismathbook,heoftenbecamedistractedandpreferredtolookathisdrawingsratherthanengaginginthemathwork.

Setting.Baselineandinterventiondatawerecollectedintheparticipants'mathclassrooms.Leonel’sdatawerecollectedinhisConsumerMathclass,whileHannah’sandJose’sdatawerecollectedintheirAlgebra1class.Onaverage,therewereatotalof20studentsineachmathclass.Thestudents’gradelevelsintheclassesrangedbetween10thand12thgrades.Thegeneraleducationteacherimplementedanexplicitdirectinstructionteachingmethod.Thestudentswereexpectedtotakenotesinanotebookwhenexplicitdirectinstructionwasbeingimplemented,andindependentworkwasassignedapproximatelyfourtimesperweek.Theworkwastobecompletedindependentlyatthestudents’assignedseats.Thestudentswereexpectedtoshowtheproceduresregardinghowtheysolvedeachproblemonaseparatesheetofpaper.Allmathworksheetsgiventostudentswerecurriculumresourcesfromthetextbook,AGSMathfortheWorldofWork(Harmeyer,2002).Theworksheetscorrelatedtotheday’sexplicitdirectinstructionlesson.Priortothestartofclass,thestudentswererequiredtoturninthepreviousnight’shomeworkinadesignatedbasket.Approximatelyeverythreeweeks,thegeneraleducationteachergaveeachstudentaprogressreportthatindicatedthestudent’soverallgradeandmissingassignments.Ifastudentdidnotsubmitanassignment,theteacherassignedthestudentmandatoryafter-schooldisciplinarydetention.

Intervention.ThePCindicatedspecificstepsparticipantsneededtocompletetosolveproblemscorrectlyonthemathworksheets.ThePCswerecreatedonthreebyfive-inchindexcards.Titlesrelatedtotheconceptsbeingtaughteachdaywereprintedonthetopofthecards.Forexample,iftheconceptbeingtaughtwasfindingthemarkeddownvalueofanitem,thetitlewouldbeDiscountandSalePrice.Belowthetitlewerekeywordsandcorrespondingdefinitions.Ifthestudentswerelearningaboutdiscounts,thePCdefinedwhattheworddiscountmeant.Beneaththevocabularydefinitionwasanexampleofaproblemfromtheworksheet.Atthebottomofthecardweretwosections.OntheleftwasasectionlabeledSteps.Thissectiondemonstratedthestepsneededtosolvetheexampleproblem.OntherightwasasectionlabeledDidIdothisstep?Thissectiondirectedtheparticipantstorecordacheckmarkastheycompletedeachstepneededtosolvetheproblem.Forexample,iftheparticipantfollowedstepsonethroughthree,acheckmarkwouldbemarkednexttothosecorrespondingsteps.Thebackoftheindexcardillustratedanothersampleproblemcorrespondingtoaproblemontheassignedworksheet.Thus,each



PCillustratedtwoexampleproblemsthatrequiredtheuseofthesamesteps.Sincethemathconceptstaughtbytheteacherchangedaccordingtothescopeandsequenceofthecurriculum,thePCsalsochangedtocorrelatewithwhatwasbeingtaught.ThefollowingaresampletitlesandconceptsthatwereillustratedonthePCs:SimpleInterest,SolvingAlgebraicExpressions,One-StepEquations,andCombiningLikeTerms.

TheresearchercreatedthePCsseveraldaysinadvanceofeachexplicitdirectinstructionlesson.Thegeneraleducationteachergavein-classassignmentsalmostdaily,andtheresearchergavethePCtotheparticipantsbeforetheyenteredtheclassroom.TheparticipantsusedthePCwithallindependentwork.ThePCsweredesignedtosimplifymathconceptsintoindividualstepsthatwerepresentedinmanageableincrementsfortheparticipants.Ratherthandecreasingtheamountofproblemsgiventotheparticipantsonthein-classworksheets,thePCswereimplementedtoassisttheparticipantsinincreasingtheiroveralltaskcompletionpercentagesbysimplifyingtheproblemsintoindividualsteps.Attheendofeachsession,participantsreturnedthePCstotheresearcher.InadditiontothePC,theresearcherandthethreeparticipantscreatedauniquehandgesturethatparticipantsusedasasignaltonotifytheresearcheriftheyhadquestionsorneededassistance.Forexample,aparticipantdisplayingathumbuponthedesksignaledtotheresearcherthattheparticipantneededhelp.

Procedure.BeforeparticipantsbeganusingthePCs,theresearchermetwiththeparticipantsindividuallytodiscusshowPCsareusedasaSMS.TheresearchercommunicatedtotheparticipantsthatiftheyusedthePC,theiroveralltaskcompletionpercentagewouldlikelyincrease.TheresearcherexplainedtotheparticipantshowthePCsweretobeutilizedbyrole-playinghowthePCworkedwitheachparticipantindividually.Theresearcherengagedinrole-playwithallparticipantsuntiltheycouldusethePCwith100%accuracy.Duringthistime,theparticipantswereencouragedtoaskquestionsaboutthePC.Theparticipantswereexcitedduringtherole-playbecausetheyunderstoodthepurposeofthePC.Theresearcheralsoexplainedtotheparticipantsthattherewouldbeaspaceonthesideofeachstepthatallowedthemtoplaceacheckmarkoncetheycompletedthatstep.Theresearcheralsoremindedtheparticipantsofthehandgestureandthatusingthegesturenotifiedtheresearchertoapproachtheparticipantsbecausetheyneededhelporhadaquestion.Theresearcherpracticedthehandgesturewithallparticipantstoensuretheywerecomfortableusingit.

TheresearchersolicitedinputregardingthedevelopmentofthePCsfromtheparticipants.Theparticipantswantedthechecklisttobethesizeofanindexcardsothattheirpeersinthegeneraleducationsettingwouldnotbeabletodeterminetheywerereceivingadditionalassistance.Asaresult,thePCswerecreatedonsmallindexcards.Sincethemathconceptspresentedthroughouttheresearchperiodchanged,theresearchercreatedcheckliststhatcorrespondedtoeachconceptthatwastaught.



Baselineandinterventiondatawerecollectedbytheresearcherduringtheparticipants’mathclasses.Duringtheclasses,theparticipantswereexpectedtocompleteworksheetsthatcorrespondedtotheinformationpresentedduringthatday’smathlesson.Theproblemsonthemathworksheetsconsistedofconstructedresponsesoropenresponsequestions.Forexample,forconstructedresponses,thestudentshadtoobtainaspecificanswertoamathproblemwhileanopenresponseproblemhadmultiplecorrectanswers.Toobtainthecorrectanswer,participantshadtofollowspecificsteps;thiswaschallengingfortheparticipants.Thenumberofquestionsontheworksheetsvariedfromfourto30questions.Thestudytookplaceover10weeks.PriortotheintroductionofthePC,theresearchercollecteddatathreetimesperweektodeterminebaselinesregardingtheparticipants’ratesofassignmentcompletion.

Theresearchermaintainedcommunicationwiththeparticipants'generaleducationmathteacherstodiscussthecontenttaughtandtheassignedindependentwork.Sincetheresearcherwasthespecialeducationteacherintheparticipants'mathclasses,theresearcherobservedthebehaviordemonstratedbytheparticipants,tooknotesregardingtheassignedwork,andrecordedparticipants’percentagesoftaskcompletion.Theresearchercalculatedthepercentageoftaskcompletionbydividingtheamountofproblemscompletedbythetotalamountofproblemsontheworksheet.

DataAnalysis.TheresearcherimplementedamultiplebaselinewithstaggeredstarttimesresearchdesigntoevaluatetheeffectivenessofthePC.Baselinedatawascollectedforallparticipantsduringweeksonethroughthree.Duringthefourth,theinterventionwasintroducedtoLeonel,andbaselinecollectioncontinuedwiththeothertwoparticipants.Duringthesixthweek,theimplementationoftheinterventionwasintroducedtotheHannahandbaselinedatacontinuedwithJose.Duringweekeight,theinterventionwasintroducedtotheJose.Theresearchercollectedbothbaselineandinterventiondatathreetimesperweekforthroughoutthestudytogaindetermineparticipants’ratesofassignmentcompletion.TheresearchercomparedbaselineandinterventiondatatodetermineiftheremaybeacorrelationbetweentheimplementationofthePCandthepercentageoftaskcompletionfortheparticipants.

Results

ThepurposeofthestudywastodeterminewhethertheuseofPCswascorrelatedwithincreasesintaskcompletionamongstudentswithhighincidencedisabilitieswhodemonstratedchallengingbehaviorsinageneraleducationmathclassroom.Theresearchercollectedin-classmathworksheetstodeterminetheparticipants'assignmentcompletionpercentages.Duringtheinterventionperiod,participantsusedPCsonindependentworktoassistthemincompletingproblemsonmathworksheets.Theresultingdataanalysis



suggeststhatthePCinterventionresultedinincreasedpercentagesofassignmentcompletionforthethreeparticipants.TheresultsaredisplayedinFigure1.



Figure1.CompletionPercentagesDuringSessions

Note.Theverticallinesdesignatewhentheinterventionwasimplementedforeachparticipant.

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 29 30

Leonel

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 29 30

Hannah

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 29 30

Jose

Percen

tageofT

askCo

mpletion

DataCollectionSessions



Leonel.Duringthebaselineperiod,Leonelcompleted,onaverage,17%ofhisclasswork.Anecdotalnotesrevealedthatononeoccasion,Leonelgotoutofhischairandcollectedtheclasscalculatorseventhoughtheteacherinstructedhimnottodoso.Duringsessionseven,whenthegeneraleducationteacheraskedhimtoattendtohisassignedwork,Leonelrefusedtofollowdirectionsanddirectedprofanitytowardstheteacher.

Initially,LeonelappearedtobeexcitedtobetheonlystudentintheclassroomtohaveaPC.Duringthefirstweekofintervention,Leonel'soverallattentivenesstotheassignmentincreased.Leonelwhisperedtohimselfthestepsthatwereillustratedonthechecklistashesolvedthemathproblems.WhenLeonelobservedhispeersstrugglingtocompleteatask,hesharedhisPCandtaughtthemhowtofollowthestepsneededtocompletetheproblems.Duringsession13,Leonelbegandemonstratingchallengingbehaviorsthatdistractedhimduringtheassignments.Duringsession15,theresearchernotedthatthesubjectleanedontheairconditioningunitandengagedinoff-taskbehavior.TheresearcherredirectedLeoneltopreventhimfromengaginginsuchbehaviorandencouragedhimtodohiswork.Leonelwasgivenatwo-minutebreaktotalktohispeerswhenhecompletedacertainamountofquestionsfromtheworksheet.

Duringsessions16through19,Leonel'spercentageofassignmentcompletionincreasedtoapproximately80%.Duringthisperiod,Leonelaskedthegeneraleducationteacherforhiscurrentgradeontheclass.ShortlyaftertheteacherinformedLeonelthathewasatriskoffailingtheclassbecausefailuretosubmitclassassignments,hepromptlyapproachedtheresearcherandaskedhimtodevelopPCsthatcorrelatedtothesubjectmatterpresentedonthemissingassignments.TheresearchernotedthatLeonelcopiedthePCstepstosolveaproblemontoaseparatepageandtookithome.Duringsessions23to30,Leonelcompletedapproximately83%ofhisassignmentswiththeuseofthePCcoupledwithtwominutebreaks.

Hannah.DuringthebaselineperiodHannahcompleted,onaverage,40%ofherassignments.Duringsession10,Hannahcompleted0%oftheassignment.Onthatday,shedrewtwoanimefigureswithflowersaroundthemonthemathworksheet.Whentheteachersawthatshedidnotcompleteherworkthatday,shewasgivenadetention,andherparentswerenotified.Afterconferringwiththeparents,theyinformedtheresearcherthatifHannah’sgradesbegantoincrease,andifshecompletedherassignedwork,theywouldtakehertoDisneyland.Betweensession10to15duringbaseline,Hannah'staskcompletionincreasedtoapproximately65%.

WhenHannahreceivedherPCduringtheinterventionperiod,sheimmediatelyputitawayinherbag.ItappearedthatshedidnotwantherpeerstoseethePC.TheresearcherspoketoHannahafterthefirstinterventionsessionanddevelopedasystemthatmotivatedhertousethePC.TheparticipantandresearchercametoanagreementthatifHannahcompleted



problemsinincrementsofthree,shewouldbegiventwominutestodrawonthePC.Duringsessions16through23,Hannah'spercentageoftaskcompletionincreasedto90%.

Jose.Duringthebaselineperiod,Josegotoutofhisseattotalktohispeers.Duringsessionsonethrough10,Josecompletedupto63%ofhisassignment.DuringSession11,thegeneraleducationteachermovedJosefromthefronttothebackoftheroom.Joseappearedtoinitiateconversationmorethanusualwithhisnewfemalepeer.Jose'spercentageoftaskcompletiondroppedfromapproximately60%to15%fromsession18tosession19.WhenJosewasintroducedtohisPC,thehebegantocompletehisworkandcheckedoffthestepsneededtosolvetheproblemsontheworksheet.

PriortoreceivingthePC,theresearchermetwithJoseandencouragedhimtoputforthmoreeffort.Asarewardforeffortandcompletingassignments,theresearcherallowedtheparticipanttostandupandwalkaroundtheclassroomforoneminute.WhenJosereceivedthePC,heappearedtobemoremotivatedtocompletehisassignments.Fromthelastsessionofbaselinetothefirstsessionoftheintervention,Jose'spercentageoftaskcompletionincreasedapproximately40%.Uponthecompletionofsession26,thegeneraleducationteacherinformedJosethatasarewardforcompletingassignments,hewouldbepermittedtochoosehisseat.Betweensessions26to27,Jose'spercentageoftaskcompletionincreasedto100%.ThoughJosestruggledduringsomemathconcepts,itappearedthattheimplementationofthePC,withpositivereinforcersgivenafterassignmentcompletion,assistedhimwiththebreakdownofmathproblemsintosequentialsteps.JosecheckedoffthestepsdelineatedonthePCafterhecompletedeachtask.

Discussion

TheintroductionofPCswithpositivereinforcerswerecorrelatedwithincreasesintaskcompletionrateamongthreehighschoolstudentswithhighincidencedisabilitieswhoexhibitedsignificantchallengingbehaviorsintheirgeneraleducationmathclasses.TheparticipantsweretaughthowtousePCsbytheresearcherpriortotheimplementationoftheintervention.Usingamultiplebaselinewithstaggeredstarttimesresearchdesign,participantsbeganutilizingtheinterventionatdifferenttimeperiodsduringthestudy.TheresultsofthisstudysuggestthatthePCinterventionalongwithpositivereinforcerswereeffectiveinhelpingtheparticipantsbreakdowneachmathproblemintoindividualstepstoincreasetaskcompletion.

ThePCscorrespondedtodirectinstructionmathconceptstaughtbythegeneraleducationteacher.Theparticipantsweredirectedtocompleteindividualsteps,asoutlinedonthePCtosolvethemathproblems.ThePCsthatwereimplementedinthisstudycanbegeneralizedtootheracademiccontentsbyadjustingthestepsneededtocompleteassignmentsinothercontentareas.Forexample,thePCsinthecurrentstudyprovided



vocabularyanddelineatedstepstosolvesamplemathproblemsfromtheparticipants’mathworksheets.ForPCstobeutilizedtoanotheracademicarea,thePCwouldhavetodemonstrateanexamplethatalignswiththesubjectmatter.

ConfoundingvariablesmayhaveinfluencedHannah’sresults.Duringsession10,Hannahchosenottocompletethein-classassignment.ThegeneraleducationteachercontactedHannah’sparentsandinformedthemthatshewouldbegivenadetention.AfterspeakingtoHannah’sparents,theyinformedtheresearcherthattheymadeanagreementwithHannah.TheystatedthatifHannahcompletedherwork,anddidnotreceiveanotherdetention,theywouldtakehertoDisneylandasareward.AccordingtoFigure1,Hannah’sassignmentcompletionpercentagebeganincreasingaftertheDisneylandagreementhadbeenestablished,whentheinterventionhadnotyetbeenintroduced.Eventhoughherpercentageoftaskcompletioncontinuedtoincreaseaftertheinterventionwasimplemented,theconfoundingfactorsofDisneylandandtheincentiveoffreetimetodrawmayhaveinfluencedHannah’sresults.

TheresultsofthisstudysupportthefindingsofpreviousresearchsuggestingthatwhenstudentswhoexhibitsignificantchallengingbehaviorslearntouseSMSs,thereisanincreaseintaskcompletion(Sheffield&Waller,2010;Shulze,2016;Smith&Sugai,2000).AccordingtoAlter(2012),whenteacherswhouseaprocess-orientedinstructionalapproachandoutlinespecificstepstosolveaproblem,studentsdevelopbasicmathematicalcomputationskillsandhighlevelreasoning.ThePChelpedstudentssolvemathproblemsbybreakingdowneachproblemintoindividualsteps,enablingtheparticipantstocompletetasksindependentlyanddecreaserelianceuponteachersandpeers(Amato-Zechetal.,2006).

Limitations

Thelimitationsofthestudypertaintodatacollectionprocedures.Theresearcherallocatedtimewiththegeneraleducationteachertocollectdataforbothbaselineandinterventionperiodsthreetimesaweek.However,therewasaninconsistencyinthedatacollectionduetothegeneraleducationteachernotimplementinganyindependentworkwhentheresearcherhadintendedtocollectdata.Forexample,thereweredaysinwhichtheteacherreviewedforanexam,introducedanewmathematicalconceptusingexplicitdirectinstruction,oradministeredanexam.Duetotheresearchernotbeingabletocollectdataaminimumofthreetimesaweekfortwoweeksduetothesefactors,theresearcherextendedthestudy.TheextratwoweeksallocatedtothestudyappeartohaveresultedinLeonellosinginterestinfollowingthePC.LeonelmentionedtotheresearcherthathewastiredoffollowingthePCandthathewasreadytograduatefromhighschool.TheresearcherencouragedLeoneltocontinueusingthePCintheclassduetohisgradegraduallyrising.Duringthelasttwoweeksofthestudy,Leonelbegantoexhibitbehaviorssimilartothosedisplayedduringbaseline.



PriortotheadministrationofthePC,theresearchermetwiththeparticipantsandreviewedtheproceduresthatdetailedhowthePCwasatooltobeusedduringindependentwork.Duringthemiddleofthestudy,bothaThanksgivingandawinterbreakoccurred,whichtotaledfourweeksofparticipantsbeingawayfromschool.Thisperiodwasembeddedintheschoolcalendarbeforethestudybegan;therefore,theresearcherhadnocontrolofthisoccurring.Theinconsistencyofthedatacollectionduetotheseperiodsmayhaveaffectedthepercentagesoftask-completion.TheparticipantshadtoberemindedaboutthePCbecausealthoughtheresearchercontinuedtocollectdataafterschoolresumed,theparticipantsappearedtohaveforgottenhowtousethePC.Thepercentageoftaskcompletionmayhavedroppedduetotheparticipants’timeawayfromusingthePC.

Anotherlimitationtothecurrentstudyisthatdatacollectiondidnotparseoutthepositivesupportsthatwereimplementedinconjunctionwithparticipants’fullorpartialassignmentcompletion.Forexample,thedatacollecteddoesnotdetermineifthePCaloneinfluencedtheparticipants’ratesofassignmentcompletion,orifadditionalincentives(timetodraw,timetosocializewithpeers,optiontochoosepreferredseat)givenatvariousincrementsofassignmentcompletionmayhaveimpactedtheparticipants’ratesofassignmentcompletion.Despitetheselimitations,asignificantamountofinformationwasobtainedfromthisstudy.ThestudyshowedthattheimplementationofaPCpairedwithpositivereinforcementwascorrelatedwithincreasesinoverallpercentagesoftaskcompletion.

Conclusion

ThecurrentstudyillustratesthattheparticipantslearnedhowtouseaPCpairedwithpositivereinforcementandtheirratesofassignmentcompletionincreasedinageneraleducationmathsetting.Therearemanypossibilitiesforfutureresearchrelatedtothecurrentstudy.Forexample,thecurrentstudycouldbereplicatedwithparametersregardingtheamountofquestionsontheworksheetsandtimeallocatedtocompleteworktoestablishconsistencyamongallparticipantsfortheentiredurationofthestudy.ThecurrentstudycouldalsobereplicatedwithdatacollectionalsofocusingonpositivereinforcementstoaccompanythePCsandaccuracyoftaskscompleted.TaskaccuracyshouldbestudiedtodetermineiftheimplementationofPCsimprovesparticipants’abilitiestoanswerquestionscorrectly.Also,studyingtheeffectsoftheuseofPCsinothersubjectareasinthehighschoolsettingiswarranted.SuchresearchcouldhelpdetermineifstudentscanbetaughttogeneralizetheuseofPCsacrossacademicareas.TheuseofaPCbystudentswithhighincidencedisabilitieswhoexhibitsignificantchallengingbehaviorspromotesself-disciplineandresponsibility.Tomeettheuniqueneedsofalllearners,teachersshouldconsistentlyseekevidence-basedtoolsandstrategiestosupportstudents’academicandbehavioralneeds.



AbouttheAuthors

MartinRios,M.A.holdsamild/moderateteachingcredentialandteacheshighschoolstudentswithhighincidentdisabilitiesattheDelanoAdultSchoolinDelano,California.Email:[email protected]

CalliLewisChiu,Ph.D.isanassistantprofessorofspecialeducationatCaliforniaStateUniversity,Fullerton.Priortoenteringtheprofessoriate,shetaughtstudentswithdisabilitiesinvarietyofpublicschoolsettingsfor11years.Email:[email protected]



References

Agran,M.,Sinclair,T.,Alper,S.,Cavin,M.,Wehmeyer,M.,&Hughes,C.(2005).Usingself- monitoringtoincreasefollowing-directionskillsofstudentswithmoderatetosevere disabilitiesingeneraleducation.EducationandTraininginDevelopmental Disabilities,40(1),3-13.

Alberto,P.A.,&Troutman,A.C.(2006).Appliedbehavioranalysisforteachers(7thed.). UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PearsonEducationInc.

Alter,P.(2012).Helpingstudentswithemotionalandbehavioraldisorderssolve mathematicswordproblems.PreventingSchoolFailure,56(1),55-64.

Amato-Zech,N.,Hoff,K.,&Doepke,K.(2006).Increasingon-taskbehaviorintheclassroom: Extensionofself-monitoringstrategies.PsychologyintheSchools,43(2),211-221.

Brooks,A.,Todd,A.W.,Tofflemoyer,S.,&Horner,R.H.(2003).Useoffunctional assessmentandaself-managementsystemtoincreaseacademicengagementand workcompletion,JournalofPositiveBehaviorInterventions,5(3),144-152.

Brown,L.,Sherbenou,R.J.,&Johnsen,S.K.(2010).TestofNonverbalIntelligence:TONI-4. Austin,TX:Pro-Ed.

Cameron,M.,&Sheppard,S.M.(2006).Schooldisciplineandsocialworkpractice: Applicationofresearchandtheorytointervention.Children&Schools,28(1),15-22.

Carson,C.(2015).Rethinkingspecialeducation's'leastrestrictiveenvironment' requirement.MichiganLawReview,113(8),1397-1426.

Cooper,J.O.,Heron,T.E.,&Heward,W.L.(2007).Appliedbehavioranalysis(2nded.). UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PearsonMerrillPrenticeHall.

Denune,H.,Hawkins,R.,Donovan,L.,McCoy,D.,Hall,L.,&Moeder,A.(2015).Combining self-monitoringandaninterdependentgroupcontingencytoimprovethebehavior ofsixthgraderswithEBD.PsychologyintheSchools,52(6),562-577.

Gable,R.A.,Bullock,L.M.,&Evans,W.H.(2006).Changingperspectivesonalternative schoolingforchildrenandadolescentswithchallengingbehavior.PreventingSchool Failure,51(1),5-9.

Gureasko-Moore,S.,DuPaul,G.J.,&White,G.P.(2007).Self-managementofclassroom preparednessandhomework:Effectsonschoolfunctioningofadolescentswith attentiondeficithyperactivitydisorder.SchoolPsychologyReview,36(4),647-664.

Harmeyer,K.M.(2002).AGSmathfortheworldofwork.CirclePines,MN:American GuidanceService.

Houchens,G.W.,Zhang,J.,Davis,K.,Niu,C.,Chon,K.H.,&Miller,S.(2017).Theimpactof positivebehaviorinterventionsandsupportsonteachers'perceptionsofteaching



conditionsandstudentachievement.JournalofPositiveBehavior Interventions,19(3),168-179.

IndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationAct,20U.S.C.1400etseq.(2004).

Kaufman,A.S.,&Kaufman,N.L.(2004).KaufmanBriefIntelligenceTest:KBIT2;Manual. Bloomington,MN:Pearson.

Kochhar-Bryant,C.A.,&Greene,G.(2009).Pathwaystosuccessfultransitionforyouthwith disabilities:Adevelopmentalprocess.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Merrill.

Kostewicz,D.E.,Ruhl,K.L.,&Kubina,R.J.(2008).Creatingclassroomrulesforstudentswith emotionalandbehavioraldisorders:Adecision-makingguide.BeyondBehavior, 17(3),14-21.

Kurth,J.A.,Lyon,K.J.,&Shogren,K.A.(2015).Supportingstudentswithseveredisabilities ininclusiveschools.Research&PracticeforPersonswithSevereDisabilities,40(4), 261-274.

Levendoski,L.S.,&Cartledge,G.(2000).Self-monitoringforelementaryschoolchildren withseriousemotionaldisturbances:Classroomapplicationsforincreasedacademic responding.BehavioralDisorders,25(3),211-224.

Lewis,T.J.,Hudson,S.,Richter,M.,&Johnson,N.(2004).Scientificallysupportedpractices inemotionalandbehavioraldisorders:Aproposedapproachandbriefreviewof currentpractices.BehavioralDisorders,29(3),247-259.

Maag,J.W.(2002).Rewardedbypunishment:Reflectiononthedisuseofpositive reinforcementinschools.ExceptionalChildren,67(2),173-186.

Mace,F.C.,Belfiore,P.J.,&Hutchinson,J.M.(2001).Operanttheoryandresearchonself- regulation.InB.J.Zimmerman&D.H.Schunk(Eds.),Self-regulatedlearningand academicachievementtheoreticalperspectives(pp.39–66).NewJersey,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

McConnell,M.E.(1999).Self-monitoring,cueing,recording,andmanaging:Teaching studentstomanagetheirownbehavior.TeachingExceptionalChildren,32(2),14-21.

McDaniel,S.C.,&Flower,A.(2015).Useofabehavioralgraphicorganizertoreduce disruptivebehavior.EducationandTreatmentofChildren,38(4),505-522.

Menzies,H.M.,Lane,K.L.,&Lee,J.M.(2009).Self-monitoringstrategiesforuseinthe classroom:Apromisingpracticetosupportproductivebehaviorforstudentswith emotionalorbehavioraldisorders.BeyondBehavior,18(2),27-35.

Nelson,R.,Benner,G.,Lane,K.,&Smith,B.(2004).AcademicachievementofK-12students withemotionalandbehavioraldisorders.ExceptionalChildren,71(1),59-73.



Rafferty,L.A.,&Raimondi,S.L.(2010).Self-monitoringofattentionversusself-monitoring ofperformance:Examiningthedifferentialeffectsamongstudentswithemotional disturbanceengagedinindependentmathpractice.JournalofBehavioralEducation, 18(1),279-299.

Reid,R.,Gonzalez,J.E.,Nordness,P.D.,Trout,A.,&Epstein,M.H.(2004).Ameta-analysis oftheacademicstatusofstudentswithemotional/behavioraldisturbance.Journal ofSpecialEducation,37(3),130-143.

Sheffield,K.,&Waller,R.J.(2010).Areviewofsingle-casestudiesutilizingself-monitoring interventionstoreduceproblemclassroombehaviors.BeyondBehavior,19(2),7-13.

Shulze,M.A.(2016).Self-managementstrategiestosupportstudentswithASD.Journalof TeachingExceptionalChildren,48(5),225-231.

Smith,B.W.,&Sugai,G.(2000).Aself-managementfunctionalassessment-basedbehavior supportplanforamiddleschoolstudentwithEBD.JournalofPositiveBehavior Interventions,2(4),208–217.

Stewart,K.G.,&McLaughlin,T.F.(1992).Self-recording:Effectsofreducingoff-task behaviorwithahighschoolstudentwithanattentiondeficithyperactivitydisorder. Child&FamilyBehaviorTherapy,15(4),53–59.

Sutherland,K.S.,&Singh,N.N.(2004).Learnedhelplessnessandstudentswithemotional orbehavioraldisorders:Deprivationintheclassroom.BehavioralDisorders,29(2), 169-181.

Turnbull,R.,Huerta,N.,&Stowe,M.(2006).TheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationAct asamendedin2004.UpperSaddleCreek,NJ:PearsonEducation.

Wagner,M.M.(1995).Outcomesforyouthswithseriousemotionaldisturbancein secondaryschoolandearlyadulthood.TheFutureofChildren,5(2),90–112.

Wood,S.J.,&Cronin,M.E.(1999).Studentswithemotional/behavioraldisordersand transitionplanning:Whatthefollow-upstudiestellus.PsychologyintheSchools, 36(4),327–345.

Woodcock,R.W.,McGrew,K.S.,&Mather,N.(2001).Woodcock-JohnsonIIITestsof Achievement.Itasca,IL:Riverside.



PARALLELCONFERENCING:CO-VIEWINGANDCO-ASSESSINGTEACHERCANDIDATES’VIDEOSStephanieKotch-Jester

ElizabethSoslau

VickiGoettel

BridgetDuda

NicholasBell

DeirdreLilly

UniversityofDelaware

AbstractThepurposeofthisactionresearchwastoexamineanalternativemethodofobservingteachercandidate’sinstructionalpracticesthroughtheuseofvideoandone-to-oneconferencingbetweentheuniversityfieldinstructorandteachercandidate.Wedevelopedaninnovativestrategytofieldinstructionthatworkedtowardssolvingatwo-partproblem(a)managingalargeworkloadand(b)preparingcandidatesforvideo-basedreflection.Themixed-researchapproachincludedelementsofself-studyandpractitionerresearchtoidentifythechallengesandbenefitsofco-viewingvideo,thetopicsdiscussedduringco-viewing,andtheinitiatorsofthereflectivediscussions.Severalchallengesandbenefitsofco-viewingvideoofpracticewereuncovered.Eventhoughchallengeswereidentified,parallelconferencingmixedwithliveobservationswasfavoredbyteachercandidates.Discussionswerefocusedacrossfivethemeswithpupilbehaviorshowingthemostfrequentedtopic.Initiatorsofthediscussionsequalizedfromthebeginningofthesemestertotheend.Overtime,thecandidatesbegantoinitiatetheconversationsofpractice.Weproposethatmixingparallelconferencingwithliveobservationscouldfunctionascosteffectivesolutiontomaintaininghighqualityfieldinstruction.

Keywords:teacheractionresearch,teacher candidates, video conferencing, field instruction

Introduction

Inthispaper,we,university-basedfieldinstructors(studentteachingsupervisors),examineanalternativemethodofconductingpost-lessonobservationconferenceswithteacher



candidatescoupledwithtraditionalfield-basedliveobservations.Wehavelabeledouralternativemethodofconferencesasparallelconferencing.Parallelconferencingoccurswhentheuniversity-basedfieldinstructorandtheteachercandidatesittogethertoco-viewandco-evaluateavideorecordingofthecandidate’steaching.Thedevelopmentofourparallelconferencingprotocolevolvedfromtwoproblemsthatweidentifiedduringthestudentteachingsemester.

First,anewlyimplementednationalteacher-licensingexam,theEducationTeacherPerformanceAssessment(edTPA)requiredourcandidatestorecordtheirpracticeandwritedeepreflectionsbasedontheirteachingvideos.Ourcandidatesconsistentlystruggledtopurposelyviewandannotatetheirinstructionalvideos.Theydidnotidentifyevidenceofeffectivepracticesorineffectivepractices,nordidtheyreflectinmeaningfulwaystowardsthegoalofimprovingtheirpractice.Candidates’reflectionsweresuperficialandoftenfocusedonstudentbehaviorversusinstructionaldecision-makingorimpactonpupillearninganddevelopingunderstandingofcontent.Second,duetoprogramrestructuringuniversity-fieldinstructors’supervisionloadsdoubledresultinginteacherstudentratiosofupto1:24.

Weknewthatweneededtodevelopanewobservationandconferencingapproachtoensurethatourcandidatesreceivedconsistentandtimelyfeedbackwhilemaintainingtheoverallqualityofourfieldinstruction.Sincethevalueoffieldinstructionliesinthepost-debriefingconference,asopposedtooursilentandpassiveobservationoflessons(Soslau,2012),wedecidedtoforgothetimespentobservingourstudents,andreallocateallofourtimetotheinstructionalcomponentofourworkwithcandidates.Videorecordingswouldnowtaketheplaceofsome,notall,ofourfieldobservations.Todiscernifthebenefitsofparallelconferencingoutweighedthepotentialchallenges,whilealleviatingtheworkloadissuesassociatedwithdoublingfieldinstructors’loads,weaskedthefollowingquestions:

• Whatarethebenefitsandchallengesofco-viewingvideorecordingsduringone-on-onepost-lessonconferences?

• Whattopicsaremostfrequentlydiscussed?

• Whoinitiatesthetopicanddoestheinitiatorrolechangeovertime?

• Asaresultofthestudy,whatrefinementtotheparallelconferencingprotocolisnecessary?

LiteratureReview

Videoforreflection.Researchaboutpreserviceteacherpreparation,andspecificallythestudentteachingpracticum,makesitclearthatvideocanbeusedtohelpcandidatesreflectontheirpractice(Rich&Hannafin,2009;Santagata&Guarino,2011;Star&Strickland,2008;Santagataet.al,2007;Schepensetal,2007;Star&Strickland,2008;vanEs&Sherin,



2008;vanEs,2009,Seidel,etal.,2013;Tripp&Rich,2012).However,reflectingonvideoonone’sownrequiresthecandidatetoemployasetofnoticingandanalysisskillsthattheymaynothavedevelopedyet.Seidel,Blomberg,&Renkl(2013)provideevidencethatstructuredguidancebyafieldinstructorimprovedteachercandidates’abilitiestonotice.Teachercandidates’wholearntodevelopalternativeinterpretationsofeventsandnoticenovelfeaturesofseeminglyroutineproblems,arebetterabletoexaminepupilthinkingretrospectivelyinwaysthatwouldbeimpossibletodoinrealtime(vanEs&Sherin,2008;vanEs,2009;Sherin&vanEs,2009;Sherin,Linsenmeier,&vanEs,2009).Notonlycanvideobeusedtohelpteachcandidateslearnhowtonoticeandassesstheirpractice,buttheuseofvideohasalsobeenshowntomotivatenoviceteacherstoimplementchangestotheirpractice(Tripp&Rich,2012)andengageinself-assessmentsfirmlyrootedinrealproblemsofpractice(Rich&Hannafin,2009).

PersonalPracticalKnowledgeandProfessionalKnowledge.Sincethisworkwasauthenticallymotivatedbytheresearcherswhoalsoservedasthefieldinstructorsforthecandidatesinthisstudy,weusedtwocomplementaryconceptualtheories;(a)professionalknowledgelandscapeand(b)personalpracticalknowledge(Clandinin&Connelly,1995;Connelly&Clandinin,1990).Todeveloptheparallelconferencingprotocolandmakesenseofourdata,wepurposefullyemployedourpersonalpracticalknowledgeoffieldinstructionandpostlessonobservationconferencing.Withacombinedtotalofover65yearsofexperienceasfieldinstructors,weknowfirst-handtheshiftsinpracticethathavebeennecessarytosupportourcandidatesandthustheprofessionalknowledgelandscapeisbothfamiliarandusefultousaswedevelopedandcarriedoutthisstudy.

Context.Weserveasfieldinstructorsatamid-sizedpublicuniversitysituatedonthemid-AtlanticcoastoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica.Allsix-fieldinstructorsparticipatedinthedevelopmentandimplementationofthisstudy.Fourofthefieldinstructorsarefulltimeclinicalfacultyandtheothertwoarefulltimeprofessionalstaff.Facultyfieldinstructorstypicallycarryasmallerloadofcandidatesrangingbetweentwelveandseventeen,whilefulltimeprofessionalstaffcanserveuptotwenty-fourcandidatesatatime.Twoofthefieldinstructorshaveterminaldegreesandtwoinstructorsarecurrentlyenrolledinadoctoralprogram.Threefieldinstructorsgraduatedfromtheteacherpreparationprogramthattheynowserve.

Ourcandidatescompleteafour-yearundergraduatebachelorsdegreeandearntwocertifications(1)elementaryeducation(2)specialeducationoramiddleschoolcontent.Therewere98candidateswhoaparticipatedinthestudy.Themajorityofourcandidatesarefemale,cis-gendered,heterosexual,white,andmiddletoupperclass.Candidatesareplacedinmostlysuburbansettingswithalowpercentageofpupilsofcolor.Weusethecoteachingmodelforstudentteaching(Soslau,Gallo-Fox,&Scantlebury,2018;Soslau,Kotch-Jester,Scantlebury,2018).Coteachingensuresthatthefocusofthepracticumistosupportpupillearningwhilealsoattendingtotheprofessionallearningneedsofbothteachers(candidates’andclassroommentorteachers’).

Normally,fieldinstructorsobserveandconductpost-debriefingconferenceswitheachcandidateeveryotherweek.Observationscanlastbetween30and90minuteswhile



debriefingconferencesusuallyrangefrom45to60minutes.Pre-lessonconferencesareunusual,butdotakeplace.Fieldinstructorsalwaysprovidecandidateswithawrittenrecordoftheobservationaswellasanynotesorfeedbacksuggestions.Oftenfieldinstructorswillalsoprovideextensivefeedbackonlessonplansandothercandidate-generatedcurricularmaterials.

ParallelConferencingProtocolandProcedures.Allfieldinstructorsconductedlive,real-timeobservationsandconferenceswiththeirteachercandidatesduringthefirstfewweeksofthetwelve-weekstudentteachingpracticum.Therewereseveralreasonswemadethisdecision.First,candidateswerefamiliarwiththeprocessoflive,real-timeobservations.Second,thesein-personon-sitemeetingsallowedfieldinstructorstogainabettersenseoftheclassroomenvironmentandbegintobuildandmaintainrapportwiththeclassroomhostteacher.Third,wedidnotwantourdecisionmakingtoinadvertentlysignaltoouruniversityadministratorsthatwedidnotvalueliveobservations,causingthemtocutclassroom-visitsasafundingpriority.

Forthesecondroundofobservationsandconferences,allfieldinstructorsaskedcandidatestorecord30to60minutesofalessonandpreparetoco-viewthelessonwiththeirrespectivefieldinstructorduringaparallelconferencingsession.Thesesessionstookplaceduringweeksfourthroughsix(ofthetwelveweekpracticum)atalocationconvenienttothedyadincludingplacessuchastheschool-practicumsite,universityoffices,orotheruniversitylocation.Thetotaltimeoftheconference,inclusiveofco-viewing,wasonehourtoanhourandfifteenminutes.Inadditiontobeingresponsibleforbringingthevideoclip,candidatesalsopresentedwrittendocumentationoftheirlessonplan,lessonmaterials,andstudentwork.

Fieldinstructorsopenedtheparallelconferencebyreadingfromabriefscriptwithpre-viewingprompts,whichexplainedtheproceduresandcreatedspaceforthecandidatetoaskanyquestionsandprovideanynecessarybackgroundcontextualinformationbeforeviewingthelesson.Candidateswereencouragedtopausethevideowhentheynoticedanaspectoftheirpracticethatwentwell,thattheywishedtoimprove,orforanyotherreasonthattheydeemednecessarytodiscuss.Candidateswerealsoinformedthatinstructorswouldpausethevideotoaskprobingquestionsandtolearnmoreabouttheinvisiblewebofdecision-makingthatcouldnotbeseenbysimplyobservingthecandidate’sinstruction.Instructorsusedaparallelconferencetrackingformtotakenotesandcollectfielddataaboutthenumberoftimesthevideowaspausedandbywhom,andwhichtopicsofconversationdominatedtheco-evaluationsession.

ParallelConferenceProtocolPrompts.Whenfieldinstructorspausedthevideo,theyaskedquestionsaimedatprobingthecandidates’invisiblethinkingsuchas,

• Whatwereyouthinkingatthispoint?• Canyoushareabitaboutyourrationaleforthisdecision?• InoticeX…whatdoyounotice?

Orusedsentencestarterssuchas,



• Explainwhy…• Tellmeabout…

Laterintheprotocol,fieldinstructorspushedforcandidatestouseevidencetoevaluatetheunfoldinglesson.Thesepromptsincludedquestionssuchas,

• Whatdoyounoticeaboutdowntime,non-instructionaltime?• Howarethestudentsfeelingatthispoint,howdoyouknow,isthatwhatyouhad

hoped,whyorwhynot?• Canyoufindevidenceoftimeswhenyouencouragedpupilthinking?• Doesyourbodylanguagematchyourintentions/voice?

Reflectivepromptswerealsousedandtiedtocandidates’evaluationoftheirlessons.Forexample,

• Weretheresteps,directions,materials,orotheraspectsofthelessonthatcouldhavebeenplanneddifferentlyormoreefficiently?

• Howdidyourpriorreflectionsonyourlessonsimpactyourteachingtoday?

Sincepriorresearchonfieldinstructionpracticespointedtothenecessityofmeta-conferencing,orconferencingaboutthevalueoftheconferenceactivityitself(Soslau,2015a,2015b),wealsoasked,

• Whatdidyoulearnfromthisconference?• Whatquestionsdoyoustillhave?

Towardstheendofeachconference,usingwhatisknownastemporallyconnectedtechniques(Conway,2001)wepushedourcandidatestoplanforfuturereflectionbyasking,

• Whatwillyoureflectontomorrow?• Whatisthemostimportantquestionyouwanttoaskyourself?• Whatisyourhopeforyournextlesson(connectedornotconnectedtothislesson)?

Finally,weencouragedcandidatestounderstandthatthereflectiveprocesswewereengagingtheminwasonethattheycouldemployontheirown,duringtheirin-servicetenure.Forexample,weoftenclosedourconferenceswith,

• Howdoesourcollaborativeconferencingpracticecompareandcontrastwithyourimaginedreflectiveself-assessmentprocessasafulltimepractitioner?”

Methodology

Weemployedamixedresearchapproachthatwouldlargelybeconsideredactionresearch(Anderson&Herr,1999).Thoughwealsousedelementsofself-study(Tidwell,Heston,&Fitzgerald,2009),andpractitionerresearch(Cochran-Smith&Lytle,2009).Datawereculledfromourparallelconferencingnotes,fieldnotes,audiorecordingsofconferences,



candidateinterviews,andfieldinstructorresearchmeetingnotes.Todeveloptheconferencingprotocol,thefieldinstructionresearchteammetmonthlytodiscussthepurposeandgoalsofparallelconferencing.Theyjointlydevelopedtheparallelconferencingprocedureaswellastheprotocol,whichincludedpromptsandprobesforthedebriefingconference.

Oncetheprotocolwasdeveloped,theteammetthroughoutthesemestertodiscussdatacollection,emergingfindings,andsharefieldnotes.Anend-of-semestermeetingwasusedtosharefieldinstructorperspectives.Dataanalysisoffieldnotesandparallelconferencingtranscriptshappenediterativelysincethesharingofoneresearcher’sdataandanalysisinfluencedthedataanalysisoftheotherfieldinstructors.Forexample,overtime,wedevelopedalistofcodestoidentifythemajorthematictopicsthatrelatedtoreasonsforpausingthevideoduringco-viewing.Dataaremostlyqualitative,thoughsomefrequencieswerecalculatedtodeterminewhichtopicscutacrossallofthefieldinstructors’datasets.Results

TopicsDiscussed.Todeterminethemajortopicsdiscussedduringparallelconferencing,fieldinstructorscodedtheirtranscribeddata.Duringourmonthlymeetings,wediscussedourcodesanddeterminedwhichcodescutacrossalldatasetstiedtoeachfieldinstructor.Table1includesthetopicsdiscussedduringconferenceswithcandidates.Table1:TopicsDiscussedwithExplanations

Topics Explanation

PupilBehavior Oneormorepupilsisactingoutanddisruptingtheirownlearningorthelearningofthosearoundthem

FocusPupils Afocuspupilisselectedduetoapredeterminedlearningneed

NoticeSomeAnomalyTheteacherstraysfromthelesson,anumberofchildren

leavetheroom,orsomeotherunplannedeventtranspires

PushingforaRationale/Justification

Attemptstouncovercandidatethinkingwhichisnotreadilyaccessiblebyobservingcandidates’

behavior/practice

IdentifyingPointsofConfusion

Noticingwhenchildrenareconfusedbythedirections,content,orsomeotheraspectofthelesson

Thesetopicsareoft-addressedtopicsintheliteratureonnoviceteacherlearning.Classroommanagementandtheabilitytocreatealearningenvironmentwhereallpupilsexhibit



sociallydesirablebehaviorsareincrediblydifficultfornewteachers.Similarly,weknowthatfieldinstructorsmustpushforcandidates’rationalesandjustificationsbeforeattemptingtoprovideasuggestionorgivingsomeothertypeofevaluativefeedback,sincedoingsowouldmakeallutterancespredicatedonthefieldinstructors’assumptionsandattributionsaboutthecandidates’intent(Soslau,2012;2015a).

Whohitpausemoreoften?Asaforementioned,wewerealsointerestedinlearningwhethercandidateswouldtakeupthepracticeofinitiatingtopicsofconversationbyself-selectingtopausethevideoanddiscusssomethingtheynoticedpertainingtotheirpracticeorinternaldecisionmaking.Tothisend,eachfieldinstructorkepttrackofwho“hitpause”whenwatchingthevideoduringallofthreeoftheirparallelconferences.Table2belowdenotesthefrequenciesandchartsthedataovertime.Thisenabledustotrackiftherewereanyshiftsintheroleofinitiatorthroughouttheexperience.Thegrayedboxesindicatealossofdatafortheparticularfieldinstructor.Onefieldinstructordidnotreportanyinitiatornumbers.Table2:Fieldinstructor(FI)andN=TeacherCandidates(TC)relatedtopersonwho“hitpause”

Conference 1 Conference 2 Conference 3 Totals

FI TC FI TC FI TC

FI#1 (N=24) 44 59 25 29 11 13 181

FI#2 (N=20) 67 45 58 53 20 20 263

FI#3(N=17) 54 40 11 13 118

FI#4 (N=17 53 43 41 35 9 10 191

FI#5 (N=12) 24 11 7 2 44

Totals 242 198 142 132 40 43 797

Eachfieldinstructor,regardlessofthenumbersofcandidatestheyserved,werethedominantparticipantinthebeginningofthefieldexperience.Asthesemestermovedon,candidatesbegansharingtheresponsibilityforpausingthevideomoreequallywiththeirfieldinstructorduringparallelconferencing.Whilethedesignofourstudydoesnotallowustoaccountforthisshift,wepositsomepossibilitiesthatcanbetakenupwithfurtherresearch.First,candidatesmayfeelmorecomfortableovertime,rapportmaydeepenbetweenthedyad,candidatesmayfeelagreatersenseofagencyastheybecomeclosertotheirprofessionallivesasinserviceteachers,orfieldinstructorsmayhavebecomemoreadeptatgivingwaittimeandmakingspacethatallowedcandidatestotakemorecontrolovertheco-viewingsessions.Wethinkthatthisisacriticallyimportantareaofstudytodevelop,becausecontrolandasenseofagencyhasbeenshowntohelpcandidatestake



advantagesofopportunitiestoimprovetheirpracticeduringfieldexperiences(Soslau,2015a).

Challenges–FieldInstructors.Duringourmonthlymeetingswesharedandcomparednotesaboutaspectsofparallelconferencingthatposedchallenges.Oftenafieldinstructorwouldbringawrittenaccountofachallengesupportedbyapartialtranscriptofher/hisconferencewithacandidate.Together,wedeterminedthematicchallengesthatwefacedduringanduponreflectionofourengagementinparallelconferencing.Wehavesixareasofchallengethatwewillnowexplicate.Allsix-fieldinstructorsexperiencedthesechallenges.

Challenge1:Feedbackonthefly.First,wefounditincrediblydifficulttodevelopfeedback“onthefly”orinsitu.Foryearswehadhonedourpracticeasfieldinstructorsguidedbyproceduresthathadussilentlyobserving,withampletimetocollectourthoughts,beforesittingwithateachercandidatetoprovidefeedbackorevaluativesuggestions.Parallelconferencingdidnotallowforthisthinktimeandwefounditdifficulttorespondtocandidates’requestsforsuggestionsonthespot.Overtime,webecamemorecomfortableexplainingtocandidatesthatourgoalwastoguidethemthroughaself-assessmentprocesstoevaluatetheirownpracticeusingevidencefromthevideoandfrompupilwork.Weexplainedthatwewouldsendfeedbackandsuggestionswhenweemailedthemournotesfromtheconference.Thischallengeactuallyhelpedshiftourinstructionalfocusfromgivingsuggestionsortellingcandidateshowtoimprove,towardsguidingcandidatesthroughaprocessandrefiningthereflectiveprocessalongsidethem.

Challenge2:Sharingtalktime.Second,wewerehesitanttodominatetheconversation.AsevidencedinTable2,mostfieldinstructorsselectedthemajorityofvideopausepointsandinitiatedtopicsfordiscussion.Though,overtimethesepracticesweremoreevenlysharedwithcandidates.Duringourmonthlymeetingswewoulddiscussourstrategiesforencouragingcandidatestotakechargeduringtheconferences.Onefieldinstructorrequiredhercandidatetopausethevideoatleasttwiceinagiventenminutesegmentoffootage.Theseartificiallyforcedstoppingpointsfordiscussionprovedlessthanfruitfulascandidatesstruggledtosayanythingmeaningfulduringtheseforcedstoppingpoints.Otherthanprovidingmorewaittimeandencouragement,wedidnotidentifyanystrategiesthatdisruptedourtendencytodominatetheconference.

Challenge3:Logisticalproblemsanalyzinggroupwork.Third,wefounditincrediblydifficulttoanalyzealessonthatincludedgroupwork.Oftencandidateswouldselectahighfunctioninggrouptovideorecordleavingthemajorityoftheclassroomoutofviewofthecamera.Thislimitedourabilitytoobserveandgivefeedbackaboutalllearnersintheclassroom.Similarly,itlimitedcandidates’abilitiestoreflectonthedevelopmentofnewunderstandingsacrossallpupils.Weaddressedthisissuebyencouragingcandidatestocontinuouslymovethecamerafromgrouptogrouportonotsubmitgroupworklessonsforparallelconferencing.



Challenge4:Coteachingwithcandidates.Fourth,parallelconferencingmadeitimpossibletoteachinsitu.Aspreviouslyexplained,weuseacoteachingmodelforstudentteaching.Coteachingmakesuseofallthehumancapitalintheclassroom,whichoftenmeansthatfieldinstructorswillassisttheteachersduringinstruction.Onefieldinstructorreportedmodelingasmallgroupforacandidatewhowasworkingwithrotatinggroupsofstudents.Themodelingfunctionedascoachinginsituandthecandidatereportedtheimportanceofseeinggoodpracticeinactionasopposedtoverballydiscussingwhatcould,orshould,havehappened.Sinceparallelconferencingisalwaysaretrospectivereflectiveactivity,coachinginrealtimeon-siteandmodelingpracticeslivewithrealpupilsisnotpossible.

Challenge5:Losingcontactandrapportwithclassroomteachers.Fifth,sinceparallelconferencingoccurredoutsideofclassroomtime,fieldinstructorslosttheabilitytomaintainregularcontactwiththeclassroomteachers.Theserapport-buildingopportunitiesarecriticalasweoftendrawonthesamepoolofclassroomteacherseachsemester.OnefunctionoffieldinstructorsistoserveasambassadorsoftheuniversityandmaintainpositiverelationshipswithourK-12schoolpartners.Classroomteachersmayviewthelackoffacetimeasalackofinterestorworse,thatwearenotactuallyprovidingthenecessaryinstructiontoourcandidatessincewearenottheretoconductliveobservations.Severalfieldinstructorsreportedclinicaleducators“callingthemout”fornotbeingintheclassroomasmuchastheyhadbeeninthepast.Thoughweexplainedtheparallelconferencingapproachtotheclassroomteachers,wearenotconfidentthattheyperceivethebenefitsasoutweighingthecosts.Again,thisisanareaforfutureinquiry.

Challengesix:Lackoftime.Thefinalchallengenotedbytheresearchteamwastheamountoftimeallocatedtoviewingvideofootage.Wefoundthatinaone-hourconference,weonlyactuallyviewedabout15minutesofvideo.Candidatesbecameusedtohowlongittooktodebriefasingleeventinagivenhourofinstructionandbeganbringingvideoclipstoourconferenceshavingalreadypreviewedandannotatedthesectionsthattheywantedtodiscuss.Thiswasawelcomedsolutionandonethatthefieldinstructionteamwasgratefulthatthecandidatesdevelopedontheirown.Thepreviewingandannotationfunctionedasbothatimesaver,sincewedidnothavetositthroughfootagethatcapturedmundanetaskssuchastakingrollorpassingoutmaterials,buttheannotationworkalsomirroredthereflectiveworkthatcandidateswouldbeaccountableforwhentheycompletedtheiredTPAportfolios.

Challenges–TeacherCandidates.Todiscernthechallengesthatourcandidates’experienced,weinterviewedeachcandidateattheendofthestudentteachingpracticumusinganexitinterviewsemi-structuredprotocol.Candidateswereaskedtosharetheirperspectivesonparallelconferencingandcomparethepracticetoourtraditionalconferencingapproach.Theresearchteamworkedtogethertocodetheinterviewdataandweidentifiedfourchallengesthatwerethematicacrossthemajorityofourcandidates.Twoofthesechallengescouldbeeasilyaddressed.First,candidateshadtechnicaldifficultieswithrecordingequipmentand,secondly,theydidnotrevieworannotatetheirvideobeforearrivingatourparallelconference.Theothertwochallengesweremorecomplicatedand



relatedbacktothechallengesarticulatedbythefieldinstructors.Candidatesreportedthattheywereunsureastowhentheyshouldhitthepausebuttonandtheyalsolamentednotbeingabouttoconferorconsultwiththeirfieldinstructorduringtheactuallesson.

Benefits–FieldInstructor.Whilechallengesarecertainlyimportanttoexplore,wealsowantedtolearnmoreaboutthepotentialbenefitsofparallelconferencing.Fieldinstructorsgathereddatathroughself-reflectiontodeterminethebenefits.Whatfollowsarebenefitsthatcutacrossallfieldinstructors.First,incontrasttoourconcernaboutthelackofabilitytogainamplefacetimewithclassroomteachers,teachersreportedthatparallelconferencingwaslessinvasiveanddistractingtoyoungpupilscomparedtoliveobservations.Wealsodeterminedthatthequalityofourconversationswithcandidateswasvastlyimproved.Inthepast,whenrecallinganaspectofacandidate’spracticefordiscussion,thecandidatewouldbecomedefensiveorsimplyrefutethattheparticulareventevenoccurred.Similarly,sincecandidatescouldseetheirpractice,theywerebetterabletooffloadthecognitiveburdenofrememberingandcouldfocusonthepastinthe“hereandnow.”

Wealsodeterminedthatthegrainsizeofeventsfordiscussioncouldbesmallerandmoremeaningful.Inthepastsomefieldinstructorswouldaskcandidateshowtheythoughtthelessonwentandthecandidatewouldappraisethelessonusingbroadstrokesacrosstheentireinstructionalperiodmakingcommentslike,“Thelessonwentwell,thekidswereengaged”or“Thepacingwasperfect,wefinishedintimeforrecess.”Thevideoservedasananchoringtoolthattiedconversationsandreflectionstospecificteacheractionsorpupils’reactions.Thesereflectionstiedtoobservablepracticesalsoservedtoimproveintersubjectivitybetweenfieldinstructorsandcandidates.Therewasverylittledisputeaboutwhathadoccurredandcandidatesandfieldinstructorscouldenterconversationsknowingthattheywererecallingeventsastheyactuallyhappened.Finally,thelogisticsofschedulingparallelconferencingwerefarsimplerthanschedulingliveobservationsfollowedbyface-to-facedebriefingconversations.Theeaseofschedulingallowedustoscheduleuptotwelveconferenceswithcandidatesinagivenweek,makingasingleloadoftwenty-fourcandidatesamanageablefeat.

Benefits–TeacherCandidates.Candidatesalsoreportedbenefitsofparallelconferencing,whichtheycitedasimprovingtheircapacitytonotice,reflectandpositchangestotheirteachingpractice.Interviewdataacrossparticipantsshowedacommonthemeof“richernoticing”whichcandidatesattributedtotheuseofvideo.Candidatesreportedmanagingaheavycognitiveloadduringteaching;simultaneouslyjugglingtheneedtocommunicatecontent,implementlessonplans,managebehavior,andworktocollaboratewiththeclassroomteacher.Theyexplainedthatduetopayingattentiontomultipleaspectofteachingduringtheactofinstruction,theyoftenmissedpupilcuesanddidnotrecognizerealtimenecessaryadaptationsoropportunitiestoimprovepupilunderstanding.Whenviewingvideooftheirpractice,theycouldsingularlyfocusontheirteachingandpupils’reactions,whichresultedinadeeper,richerabilitytonoticeclassroominteractionsandprovidedampleopportunitiesforreflectiononpractice.



Candidatesalsoreportedthattheypreferredparallelconferencingbecausetheyhadtimeto“decompress”and“process”thelessonbeforeco-viewingandco-evaluatingthelessonwiththeirfieldinstructor.Participantsexplainedthatitwasdifficulttositwiththeirfieldinstructorimmediatelyafteraliveobservationandengageindeepmeaningfulreflection.Manycandidatesreportedthattheir“headwasspinning”andtheyjustneededsomedowntimeanddistancefromthelessontobeabletoanalyzetheirteachingwithaclearhead.

Whenaskedtocomparethelearningenvironmentbetweenatraditionalliveobservationandparallelconferencing,themajorityofcandidatesstatedthatparallelconferencingwaslessriskyandtheyfeltlesspressure.Forsomecandidates,theyenjoyedbeingabletoself-selectasegmentoftheirlessontoshowtheirfieldinstructor,asopposedtothefieldinstructorviewinganentirelessonofherchoice.Ofcoursethiscouldleadto“cherrypicking”wherecandidatesonlyshowtheirbestteachingepisodes,missingoutonopportunitiestocollaboratewiththeirfieldinstructoraroundaparticularproblemofpractice.Weprobedcandidatesonthispointandwhilesomecandidatesadmittedtoonlyshowingtheirbestteaching,themajorityofcandidatespurposefullyselectedsegmentsoflessonsthattheywantedtoimprove,makinggooduseoftheconferencingtimewiththeirfieldinstructor.

Finally,candidatessharedthatparallelconferencingboostedtheirsenseofconfidenceandself-efficacy.Manycandidateswereabletonoticepositiveaspectsoftheirteachingpracticewhileviewingthevideoandfieldinstructorsencouragedthisbyaskingcandidatestopausethevideowhentheynoticedsomethingthatwentwellandcouldbeusedinfutureinstructionalplans.Thefieldhasknownfordecadesthatstudentteachingcanbeapainfulandanxiety-inducingtimeandopportunitiestobuildefficacyarecritical(seeforexample,Fuller,1969;Gibson&Dembo,1984;Ghaith&Shaaban,1999;Davenport&Smetna,2004),sinceateacher’sefficacyisdirectlyrelatedtotheirabilitytopositivelyimpactpupillearningandemotionalwell-being.Attheconclusionofeachinterview,weaskedcandidatesiftheypreferredlive,parallel,oramixtureofbothconferencingapproaches.Amajorityofcandidatespreferredparallelconferencing(55%)withthesecondchoicebeingamixedapproach(33%)andlessthan12%ofrespondentspreferringliveobservationsonly(totalrespondentsN=98).Discussion

RevisingtheParallelConferencingProtocol.Inthetraditionofactionresearchandthespiritofself-study,wehaveenteredandremaincommittedtothecycleofinquiryinvolvingtheassessmentofourpractice,planningimprovements,enactingchange,andevaluatingthemeritofourinnovations(Anderson&Herr,1999;Mills,2003).Thisstudyrepresentsonefullcycleoftheactionresearchprocess.Weusedtheassessmentphasetoidentifyaproblem,wecollaboratedtodeveloptheparallelconferencingprotocol,andwesystematicallyimplementedtheprotocolandcollecteddatatodetermineifparallelconferencingwasfunctioningtosupportthedualpurposesofenhancingopportunitiesforreflectionand



helpingustomanageourworkload.Whileourfindingspointtobothbenefitsandchallengesofparallelconferencing,webelievethatthebenefitsareworththepedagogicalrisks.However,wealsoacknowledgethatwemustusewhatwelearnedtorefineandimproveourfieldinstructionpractices.Asaresultofourcollaborativeactionresearchwehaveidentifiedfivenecessaryrevisions.First,weplantodevelopasecondprotocoltobeusedwithcandidateswhenexploringpupilwork.Oftentimesthecontentoftheparallelconferencewasfocusedsingularlyonthevideoevidenceofpractice.Whileitishelpfulforcandidatestoreflectontheirenactedinstruction,itisequallycriticalthatcandidatesjudgethemeritoftheirlessonbasedonstudentdata.Exploringpupilworkenablescandidatestodeterminewhichstudentsunderstoodtheconceptsandwhichpupilsarestruggling.Thesedataareimportanttoexploreandcandidatesneedguidancetosortthroughpupilwork,evaluatetheworkagainsttheirplannedlearningobjectives,anddevelopnextstepsincludingplansforenrichmentandremediation.Webelievethattheheartofgoodteachingisrootedinpupiloutcomes,thusweplantousethepupilworkprotocolbeforeco-viewingthevideo.Theanalysisofpupilworkshouldbeusedtoguidetheco-viewingprocessbysettinganintentionfornoticing.Forexample,ifthepupilworkshowedthatallstudentsstruggledtodemonstrateunderstandingofaparticularconcept,thenconferenceparticipantswouldcloselyanalyzethesegmentofteachingrelatedtothatconceptandworktogethertoidentifymissedopportunitiestoimprovepupillearning.Notcoincidentally,thisprocessmapsexactlytoaperformancetaskontheedTPA.Movingforward,wewillnowrequirecandidatestopreviewandannotatetheirvideoclipsbeforewemeettoconducttheparallelconference.Asaforementioned,participantsbegantodothisoftheirownvolition,butallcandidatesneedtoengageinthisactivitysinceitmakestheco-viewingprocessmoreefficientanditprovidesamplepracticeforcandidatestoreflectonandannotatetheirownwork.Thissecondrefinementnecessitatesthedevelopmentofascaffoldingtool.Wewilldevelopguidelinestohelpcandidatesannotatetheirvideo,providingatemplateandsuggestionsforhowandwhattoannotate.Next,wenotedathematicchallengeforourcandidatesrelatedtotheirwillingnessto“hitpause”whenco-viewingtheirlesson.Manycandidatesreportednotknowingwhentopausethevideo.Forthisreason,wewilldevelopalistofrationalesforwhyacandidatemaychoosetopausetheirvideosegmenttodiscusssomethingtheynoticedwiththeirfieldinstructor.Sentencestarterssuchas,“Inoticed”and“WhenI…Iwasthinking…”or,“Here’sapointwhereIstruggledwith…”willbeprovidedtocandidatestohelpguidetheirprocessandencouragetheiractiveengagementintheconference.Wearealsoconsideringsettingaquotaforthenumberoftimescandidatesmustpausethevideoduringco-viewing,thoughwehaveyettoagreeonanoptimalnumber.Thisisdifficultbecausesometeachingeventsrequirelengthydebriefingconversations.Ifacandidateexperiencesaparticularlycomplexeventduringteaching,thedebriefingsessioncouldtaketheentirehour.



Finally,wewillworktogethertodevelopaplanthatallowsforamixedapproachtoourfieldinstructionprocess.Thoughamajorityofourcandidatespreferredparallelconferencing,weacknowledgethatliveobservationscarrybenefitsandadvantagesthatcannotbeachievedduringtheretrospectiveactivityofparallelconferencing.Theseadvantagesincludebecomingfamiliarwiththeclassroomclimate,touchingbasewiththeclassroomteacher,andprovidinginsitucoachingduringlessondelivery.Implications

Wemakeseveralimportantcontributionswiththisstudy.First,weareoneofveryfewfieldinstructionteamsthathavesystematicallycarriedoutanactionresearchstudyforthepurposesofimprovingourpracticeforalargepopulationofteachercandidatesintheUSA.Wewouldliketoacknowledgetheimportantworkofotherpractitioner-researcherteamsabroadintheUnitedKingdomandAustralia.Second,wewereabletodevelopaninnovativeapproachtofieldinstructionthatworkedtowardssolvingourtwopartproblem(a)managingalargeworkloadand(b)preparingcandidatesforvideo-basedreflection.Importantly,wewereabletoidentifyareasofimprovementforourinstructionalpractices,whichinactionresearchsufficientlyaddressesthesignificanceofourwork(Herr&Anderson,2005;Mills,2003).

Wealsorealizethatmanyteacherpreparationprogramsarestrugglingtoprovidehighqualityfieldexperiencesforcandidates.DecliningenrollmentnumbersandbudgetaryconcernscutacrossmanyUnitedStatescollegesanduniversitiesthathouseinitialcertificationprograms.Mixingparallelconferencingwithliveobservationscouldfunctionascosteffectivesolutiontomaintaininghighqualityfieldinstruction.Similarly,teacherpreparationprogramsareworkinghardtopreparecandidatesforstateandnationalassessmentsthatrequirecandidatestodeeplyreflectonvideorecordingsoftheirteachingpractice(forexamplesee,edTPAandPPATrequirements).Teachereducatorswhoareworkingtopreparecandidatesforthesehigh-stakesassessmentscanuseourprotocolstobettersupportcandidates.

Conclusion

Finally,thoughthefieldofselfstudyinteachereducationexist,seeforexamplethejournal,StudyingTeacherEducation:Ajournalofself-studyofteachereducationpractices,therearelimitedempiricalstudiesthatactuallyexploretheworkoffieldinstructors,particularlyfromfieldinstructors’perspectives(Soslau,2015a).Hopefully,ouractionresearchstudywillinspireotherteamsoffieldinstructorstoengageinsimilarinquiriestosharetheirpracticeswiththeteachereducationfield.Studentteachingandclinicalbasedpracticeisanomnipresentcomponentacrossteacherpreparationprogramsincludingtraditionalandalternativeroutecertificationprograms.Teachereducatorsneedtobetterunderstandhowtobestservecandidateswhiletheyarestudentteaching.Ifcandidatesdonotlearnhowtosystematicallyreflecton,andanalyze,theirteachingdecisionsduringtheirpreserviceexperiences,thenitisunlikelythattheywillengageinthisreflectivepracticeduringtheirinservicetenure.Parallelconferencingisoneviableapproachtosupportingthe



developmentofreflectiveteacherswhousepupilworkandtheirowninstructionaldecisionmakingasthecurriculumforwhichtheydeveloptheirprofessionalpractice.



AbouttheAuthors

StephanieKotch-JesterisanassistantprofessorintheSchoolofEducationattheUniversityofDelawarewheresheservesasafieldinstructorandteachesundergraduatemethodscourses. Researchinterestsincludecoteachingasamethodofteacherpreparationandfieldinstructionpracticesthatimpactteachercandidates’learning. Email:[email protected]

ElizabethSoslauisanassociateprofessorintheSchoolofEducationattheUniversityofDelawarewheresheservesasafieldinstructorandteachesundergraduateandgraduatecoursesonequityinschoolingandactionresearchmethodologyforpractitioners.Herresearchexploreslearningopportunitiesinthestudentteachingpracticum,candidates’developmentofadaptiveteachingexpertise,andsocialjusticeinteachereducation.Email:[email protected]

VickiGoettelispartofthefacultyasaseniorinstructorintheSchoolofEducationattheUniversityofDelaware.Teachingincludesfieldinstructionduringstudentteachingsemestersandcourseinstructionfocusingonelementarysocialstudiescurriculum. ShealsoservesasthecoordinatorfortheMiddleSchoolSocialStudiesprogram.Email:[email protected]

BridgetDudaisaDoctoralCandidate,ClinicalCoordinator,andhasaSecondaryAppointmentintheSchoolofEducationattheUniversityofDelaware.Herresearchexploresservicedeliverymodelswithintheleastrestrictiveenvironment(LRE)andfieldinstructionpracticesthatimpactteachercandidates’.Bridgetalsoservesas4+1MastersinExceptionalChildrenandYouthprogramcoordinator,fieldinstructorandteachesundergraduateandgraduatepracticumcoursesinspecialeducation.Email:[email protected]

NicholasBell isafieldinstructor,instructor,andPh.D.studentintheSchoolofEducationattheUniversityofDelaware.Asafieldinstructorandinstructor,heworkswith pre-serviceteacherstodeveloptheirskills,knowledge,andbeliefstoeducateallstudents.Forthepastfewyears,Nicholashasbeenstudyingadvancedquantitativemodelingtomeasureissuesofequityandsocialjusticeineducationandwaystodisruptsystemicinequities.Email:[email protected]

DeirdreLillyisaseniorinstructorintheSchoolofEducationattheUniversityofDelaware.HerteachingincludesfieldinstructionofteachercandidatesintheElementaryTeacherEducationprogramandcourseinstructionfocusingonclassroommanagementandtopicsrelatedtothetrainingandprofessionaldevelopmentofpre-serviceteachers. Email:[email protected]



ReferencesAnderson,G.L.,&Herr,K(1999).Thenewparadigmwars:Isthereroomforrigorouspractitioner knowledgeinschoolsanduniversities?EducationalResearcher,28(5),12-21.Cochran-Smith,M.&Lytle,S.(2009).InquiryasStance:PractitionerResearchintheNext Generation.NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.Connelly,F.M.,&Clandinin,J.(1990).Storiesofexperienceandnarrativeinquiry.Educational Researcher,19(5),2-14.Conway,P.(2001).Anticipatoryreflectionwhilelearningtoteacher:fromatemporallytruncatedto atemporallydistributedmodelofreflectioninteachereducation.TeachingandTeacher Education,17,89-106.Clandinin,D.J.,&Connelly,F.M.(1995).Teachers’professionalknowledgelandscapes.NewYork, NY:TeachersCollegePress.Davenport,J.,&Smetana,L.(2004).Helpingnewteachersachieveexcellence.DeltaKappaGamma Bulletin,70(2),18-22.Fuller,F.(1969).Concernsofteachers:Adevelopmentalconceptualization.AmericanEducational ResearchJournal,6(2),207-226.Ghaith,G.,andK.Shaaban.(1999).Therelationshipbetweenperceptionsofteachingconcerns, teacherefficacyandselectedteachercharacteristics.TeachingandTeacherEducation,15, 487–496.Gibson,S.&Dembo,M.H.(1984).Teacherefficacy:Aconstructvalidation.JournalofEducational Psychology,76,569-582.Mills,G.(2003).ActionResearch:Aguidefortheteacherresearcher(2nded.).UpperSaddleRiver, NJ:PrenticeHall.Rich,P.J.,&Hannafin,M.(2009).Videoannotationtools:Technologiestoscaffold,structure,and transformteacherreflection.JournalofTeacherEducation,60(1),52-67.Santagata,R.,&Guarino,J.(2011).Usingvideototeachfutureteacherstolearnfromteaching. ZDM:TheInternationalJournalofMathematicsEducation,43(1),133-145.Schepens,A.,Aelterman,A.,&VanKeer,H.(2007).Studyinglearningprocessesofstudentteachers withstimulatedrecallinterviewsthroughchangesininteractivecognitions.Teachingand TeacherEducation,23,457-472.Seidel,T.,Blomberg,G.,&Renkl,A.(2013).Instructionalstrategiesforusingvideointeacher education.TeachingandTeacherEducation,34(1),56-65.Sherin,M.G.,&vanEs,E.A.(2009).Effectsofvideoclubparticipationonteachers’professional vision.JournalofTeacherEducation,60(1),20-37.



Sherin,M.G.,Linsenmeier,K.A.,&vanEs,E.(2009).Selectingvideoclipstopromotemathematics teachers‟discussionofstudentthinking.JournalofTeacherEducation,60,213-230. doi:10.1177/0022487109336967.Soslau,E.(2012).Opportunitiestodevelopadaptiveteachingexpertiseduringstudentteaching conferences.TeachingandTeacherEducation,28(5),768-779.Soslau,E.(2015).Developmentofapost-lessonobservationconferencingprotocol:Situatedin theory,research,andpractice.TeachingandTeacherEducation,49,22-35.Soslau,E.(2015).Exploringintersubjectivitybetweenstudentteachersandfieldinstructorsin studentteachingconferences.CogentEducation,2(1),1-8.Soslau,E.,Gallo-Fox,J,&Scantlebury,K.(2018).Opportunitiesforlearninginacoteachingmodel: Implicationsforuniversity-basedfieldinstructors.JournalofTeacherEducation. DOI:10.1177/0022487117750126.Soslau,E.,Kotch-Jester,S.,Scantlebury,K.,&Gleason,S.(2018).Coteachers’huddles:Developing adaptiveteachingexpertiseduringstudentteaching.TeachingandTeacherEducation,73, 99-108.Star,J.R.,&Strickland,S.K.(2008).Learningtoobserve:Usingvideotoimprovepreservice mathematicsteachers’abilitytonotice.JournalofMathematicsTeacherEducation,11(2), 107-125.Tidwell,D.,Heston,M.,&Fitzgerald,L.(2009).Researchmethodsfortheself-studyofpractice(Vol. 9).Netherlands:Springer.Tripp,T.R.,Rich,P.J.(2012).Theinfluenceofvideoanalysisontheprocessofteacherchange. TeachingandTeacherEducation,28,728-739.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.011vanEs,E.,&Sherin,M.G.(2008).Mathematicsteachers“learningtonotice”inthecontextofavideo club.TeachingandTeacherEducation,24,244–276.DOI:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.005vanEs,E.(2009).Participant’srolesinthecontextofvideoclub.JournaloftheLearningSciences, 18(1),100-137.DOI:10.1080/10508400802581668.



REFLECTIONS:EXPLORINGSTUDENTWRITINGSELF-EFFICACYINTHEONLINEENVIRONMENTSharonicaNelson

UniversityofAlabamaatBirmingham

AlabamaA&MUniversity

AbstractManystudieshavebeenconductedthataddresswritingself-efficacy;however,fewstudiesaddresswritingself-efficacyintheonlineenvironment.ThroughthisactionresearchendeavorIsoughttounderstandwhetherstudentonlinewritingself-efficacychangedfromthebeginningofthecoursetotheendwithintentional,targetedassignments:authentic,informal,andformalwriting.StudentswereadministeredtheSEWSinstrumentandwereaskedtocompleteitanonymouslyatthebeginningofthecourseandattheend.Datawascalculatedforpercentageofchangeforeachaspectoftheinstrument.Resultsshowedthatpositivechangesinstudentwritingself-efficacycanoccuroverthecourseofasemester.

Keywords:teacheractionresearch,onlinelearning,self-efficacy,writing,highereducation,historicallyblackcollegesanduniversities,teacherreflection

Introduction

Onlineeducationenrollmenthasincreasedexponentiallywithinthelastdecade.Vilkas&McCabe(2014)suggestthatinnovativepracticesareneededtoimprovequalityinstruction,andthatoneareathatneedsfurtherresearchispromotingonlinestudents’self-efficacy.Inmycurrentpractices,Ihavelearnedthatmanystudentswhoenteronlinecollegewritingcoursesdosooutofnecessityandnotoutofpersonaldesire.Ihavefurtherlearnedthat,manystudentsdonothavehighself-efficacypertainingtowriting,coupledwiththefactthatmanyofthemarereallynotcomfortabletakingonlinecourses.Theymayhaveenrolledbecauseitwaslistednextinthesequenceofcoursestheyneedtotake,theydecidedtotakethecourseasalast-ditchefforttograduate,orthetraditionalofferingofthecoursewasfull,sotheyoptedfortheonlineversion.Whateverthecase,manystudentsareintheonlinecourseandhavelowself-efficacyregardingthewritingprocessesintheonlineenvironment.



Throughthisactionresearchproject,Isoughttounderstandstudentwritingself-efficacyintheonlineenvironmentwithinawritingintensiveliteraturecourse,with45studentsinahistoricallyBlackcollegeintheSoutheastUnitedStates.ThefirstsemesterItaughtthecourse,Inoticedthatseveralstudentswithdrewfromthecourse,failedthecourse,andmanybarelypassedduetoneglectingtocompletemanyofthewritingassignments.Thereweremanystudentswhopassed,butthenumberofstrugglingstudentswasalarming.Thisledmetoreflectonthetypesofwritingassignments,therequiredelementsoftheassignments,andthegradingoftheassignments.Afterreflecting,themainthingIdecidedtoemployforthenextsemesterwastoincorporateablendofauthentic,informal,andformalwriting.WhileItailoredthewritingassignments,Ialsofounditbeneficialtotrackstudentwritingself-efficacyasthiscouldhavebeenacontributingfactortoeitherstudentcompletionofwritingassignmentsintheprevioussemester.Thisreflectiveactionresearchstudydetailstheprocessesofseekingtoimprovethecoursewhiletrackingstudentwritingself-efficacyforchangeasaresultofthoseimprovements.

ReflectiononPractice.“Incommon-senseterms,reflectionliessomewherearoundthenotionoflearning.Wereflectonsomethinginordertoconsideritinmoredetail”(Moon,2001,p.1).Withthisinmind,Ithoughtitnecessarytolearnfrommyexperiencesofteachingthecoursetoimproveitformyfuturestudents.ItisthroughreflectionthatIwasabletoascertainpointsofcorrection,development,andimprovement.Rogers(2001)placedthefocusofreflectiononthelearners’professionalgrowth.Idecidedthatreflectiononthiscoursewasimportantplaceformyprofessionalgrowth.Uponrealizingthatmanyofmystudentswerelargelyunsuccessfulinthecourse,Idecidedthatitwasmoreimportanttomethatstudentsweresuccessfulandthattheylearnedpertinentwritingskillsthatwouldimpacttheirwritingself-efficacy.Therefore,Iconstitutednon-negotiablestandardsasimprovementsforthecourse.Idecidedthatstudentswou

Documents

Journal of Teacher Action Research 1 JTAR · several strategies that assist students in managing and shaping their own behavior (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). The implementation