`INSIDE FRONT COVER (REMOVE Call for Reviewers heading and paragraph that we usually put in on top of this page.)

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning is published by the New York Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (NYACTE). 2010 New York Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Copyright NoticeThe New York Association of Colleges for Teacher Education owns the copyright of this publication. Permission to photocopy is granted for classroom use only. Written permission must be obtained from NYACTE for other uses. Address permission inquiries to the Editor.

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning is issued bi-annually as a service to members of the New York Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. The subscription price is included in the association’s annual dues. Extra copies may be purchased for $15 per copy. Send orders along with a complete mailing address and a check made payable to “NYACTE.” Institutional subscriptions to the journal are available. Contact the editor for the current rate. Send orders to the Editor.

Editor’s address:Cynthia A. LassondeEditor, ExcelsiorSUNY College at Oneonta501 Fitzelle HallOneonta, NY 13820

Cover design by Eileen Cunningham, Ian Lascell, and Ricmar—The Design and Print ShopPage layout, design, and printing byRicmar—The Design and Print Shop, 101 Edson Street, Amsterdam, New York

ExcelsiorLeadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 5, Number 1 Fall/Winter 2010

Message from the President by Kate DaBoll-LavoiePage X

Notes from the Editor by Cindy LassondePage X

Notes from the Guest Associate Co-editors by Patrice Hallock and Alicja RiegerPage X

Update from the New York State Education DepartmentOn the HorizonJoseph P. Frey

Page 1

Featured Articles on Teacher Preparation for Special Education and Inclusion

You Really Have to Specify What You’re Talking about When You Say “Co-teaching”: Student Teachers in “Co-taught” ClassroomsSusan Hildenbrand

Collaboration for Inclusion: Authentic Experiences in Teacher PreparationMarie Cianca, Michael Wischnowski, Susan Hildenbrand, and Daniel Kelly

Featured Articles on Collaboration

Action Research Empowering Teacher Development:Connecting Teacher Reflection, Teaching Effectiveness, and Program ChangeCynthia J. Benton, Susan K. Stratton, and Karen Stearns

Page XX

A Regional Survey of Teacher Leadership: A Catalyst for Re-examining Leadership PreparationKathleen Dickinson Rockwood, Debra J. Thomas, Ernest J. Piermarini, and Ronald D. Valenti

Page XX

The Impact of Professional Development School Self-Studies at Two Urban Elementary PartnershipsAlexandria Lawrence Ross, Nancy Dubetz, Cecilia M. Espinosa, Scott Wolfson, Damaris Ramirez-Bello, and Pashka Vulaj

Page XX

Sharing Perspectives

Numbers Can Be Hazardous to Your Health: Using Boxplots to Monitor Collaborative Assessment DataBrian D. Beitzel

Page XX

Public Exhibition of Understanding: A Perspective for Teacher EducationPaul J. Vermette, Karrie A. Jones, Jennifer L. Jones, and Donna Kester-Phillips

Page XX

Nota Bene

What Members of the NYACTE Executive Board Are Reading Craig Hill and Joanne M. Curran

Page XX

What Professors at Lehman College, City University of New York, Are ReadingAbigail McNamee, Penny Prince, Andrea Zakin, Cecilia M. Espinosa, Marta A. Ghezzo, and Ralph William Boone

Page XX

Book Review of The EdutainerReviewed by Penina A. Kamina

Page XX

Book Review of In the Public EyeReviewed by Kjersti VanSlyke-Briggs and Carol Dean

Page XX

Call for ManuscriptsPage XX

NYACTE Executive Board 2010

President Vice President/President ElectKate DaBoll-LavoieNazareth College

Past President Secretary

Lois Fisch Craig HillUtica College Nazareth College

TreasurerAnnjanet Woodburn

Pace University

Board of Directors

Joanne M. Curran Nancy Low-HoganSUNY College at Oneonta Long Island University

Christine Givner Jerrold Ross SUNY Fredonia St. John’s University

Mark LaCelle-Peterson Paul VermetteHoughton College Niagara University

Journal Editor WebmasterCynthia A. Lassonde Ed TeallSUNY College at Oneonta Mount Saint Mary College

National Editorial Board

Dominic Belmonte, Golden Apple Foundation Helene Napolitano, Marymount Manhattan Mary E. Diez, Alverno College College, EmeritusLaura Dorow, Utica College Robert J. Nistler, University of St. ThomasJoanne Kilgour Dowdy, Kent State University Susan Polirstok, Kean UniversityLois Fisch, Utica College Sandra Stacki, Hofstra UniversityAlthier M. Lazar, St. Joseph’s University Robert J. Starratt, Boston CollegeCarol Merz-Frankel, University of Puget Sound

Editorial Review Board

Evelyn Barese, Mount Saint Mary CollegeAmy E. Barnhill, SUNY College at BrockportBrian D. Beitzel, SUNY College at OneontaDee Berlinghoff, Mount Saint Mary CollegeChristine C. Bond, Valdosta State UniversityFred J. Brandt, Lesley UniversityKathleen M. Brown, Niagara UniversityDiane Casale-Giannola, Rider UniversityMelissa Jarvis Cedeno, Brighter Choice Charter SchoolCynthia C. Choi, Le Moyne CollegeCarolyn F. Chryst, SUNY College at OneontaJoanne M. Curran, SUNY College at OneontaMargo DelliCarpini, Lehman College, CUNYJanet R. DeSimone, Lehman College, CUNYGina M. Doepker, Valdosta State UniversityBernadette Donovan, Molloy CollegePatricia A. Dunn, Stony BrookBrian Evans, Pace UniversityJoanne M. Falinski, Editorial ConsultantMinaz B. Fazal, New York Institute of TechnologyJoAnne Ferrara, Manhattanville CollegeCathy E. Freytag, Houghton CollegeBarbara Garii, SUNY College at OswegoTracy Garrett, Lander UniversityVicky Giouroukakis, Molloy CollegeLinda Schwartz Green, Centenary CollegeAmy Steffens Griffith, University of Wisconsin, WhitewaterWendy Hacke, National Hispanic UniversityJean Hallagan, SUNY College at OswegoPatrice W. Hallock, Utica CollegeDon Halquist, SUNY College at BrockportInez A. Heath, Valdosta State UniversityCharles F. Howlett, Molloy CollegeJohn H. Hummel, Valdosta State UniversityBarbara Ann Iannarelli, Niagara UniversityRoberto Joseph, Hofstra UniversityLaurence Krute, Manhattanville CollegeDiane E. Lang, Manhattanville CollegeJennifer Lauria, Wagner CollegeElaine Lawrence, SUNY College at OneontaAnita C. Levine, Kent State University, StarkKenneth Lindblom, Stony Brook University

Andrew Livanis, Long Island University, BrooklynJoAnn M. Looney, Nyack CollegeWen Ma, Le Moyne College

Lawrence J. Maheady, SUNY College at FredoniaJill G. Marshall, SUNY College at FredoniaMargaret Cain McCarthy, Canisius CollegeSonia E. Murrow, Brooklyn College, CUNYVictoria L. Nackley, Utica CollegeDeniz PalakRoy R. Pellicano, St. Joseph’s College, Suffolk CampusDavenport “Mike” Plumer, New York Institute of TechnologyGerald Porter, SUNY College at CortlandLinda Pratt, Elmira CollegePenny Prince, Lehman College, CUNYHeather Meyer Reynolds, SUNY/Empire State CollegeKathleen Rockwood, Manhattanville CollegeAnne L. Rothstein, Lehman College, CUNYSini Prosper Sanou, SUNY Stony BrookEllen Durrigan Santora, University of RochesterSusan S. Shenker, Long Island University, C. W. Post CampusBruce A. Shields, Daemen CollegeRaymond Siegrist, SUNY College at OneontaChristina Siry, Manhattanville CollegeJoye Smith, Lehman College, CUNYKaren Stearns, SUNY College at CortlandEdward J. Sullivan, SUNY College at New PaltzMarilyn Tallerico, Binghamton UniversityCecelia E. Traugh, Long Island University, Brooklyn CampusSteven L. Turner, Kent State UniversityJennifer Tuten, Hunter College Ann Unterreiner, Valdosta State UniversityKjersti Van Slyke-Briggs, SUNY College at OneontaRobin Voetterl, Siena CollegeJulia White, University of RochesterRoberta Wiener, Pace UniversityStacy A. S. Williams, SUNY, University at AlbanyAnnjanet Woodburn, Pace UniversityRene Wroblewski, St. Bonaventure University

New York State Association of Teacher Education,

New York Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,

and

Task Force 

invite you to participate in this year’s annual conference. 

NYSATE  &  NYACTE  Annual Conference. 

Please note that this will be the ONE AND ONLY NYSATE/NYACTE conference for the 2010-2011 academic year.

There will be NO Spring 2011 conference. 

Our Theme is

XXXXXXXXX

October 21-22, 2010

Preconference EventOctober 20, 2010

Gideon Putnam Resort and SpaSaratoga Springs, NY

(www.gideonputnam.com)

 

 Visit www.NYACTE.org and www.NYS-ATE.org

for more information.

Call for Nominations for NYACTE’s Annual CHARLES C. MACKEY, JR.

EXCELLENCE IN SERVICE LEADERSHIP AWARD

Complete nominations must be postmarked by July 1, 2011.

The Charles C. Mackey, Jr. Excellence in Service Leadership Award honors an educator in New York State who has demonstrated personal and professional qualities that exemplify the highest standards of service leadership in teacher education. An excellent servant leader is one who through personal knowledge, wisdom, ethical practice, and courage models effective practice and thus enables others to reach individual, institutional, and communal goals.

The Charles C. Mackey, Jr. Excellence in Service Leadership Award recognizes an individual who represents Teacher Education in his/her respective institution of higher education in New York State. The individual exemplifies service leadership within his/her institutional setting and within the broader New York professional community through engagement, initiative and personal qualities that reflect relevant High Standards for Teacher Education Accountability as defined by the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education:

1. Serve first and foremost as an advocate for P-12 students, especially for promoting the growth and development of all students;

2. Promote diversity in teacher education faculty, preservice teachers, curriculum, and programs;

3. Be accountable to prospective teachers for their preparation to meet state licensure expectations (including knowledge of subject matter and of the students to whom those subjects are taught);

4. Be informed by the best practice and most current research on teaching and learning theory and practice, including the commitment to active scholarship by teacher education faculty;

5. Operate in collaboration with professional agencies responsible for quality assurance in the teaching profession.

Past recipients of the award:Charles C. Mackey, Jr., Doris T. Garner,

James Shuman, Linda Beimer, Jan McDonald, Suzanne Miller, Joseph Frye,

and Sister Miriam Honora Corr

For more information on requirements and to access the nomination form, go to www.NYACTE.org

or contact Joanne Curran at curranjm@oneonta.edu.

Message from the President

Leave a full page for this.

Kate DaBoll-Lavoie

President, NYACTE

Nazareth College

Notes from the EditorExcelsior always tries to stay on top of the needs and interests of NYACTE’s members

and its readers across the nation. Therefore, we offer a special section in this issue—featured articles on Teacher Preparation for Special Education and Inclusion. This section is the result of the work of our guest associate co-editors, Patrice Hallock and Alicja Rieger.

Patrice and Alicja contacted me over a year ago with the idea of doing a themed issue related to special education. They also offered to help with the issue based on their expertise and experience in the field. With approval of their application by our National Editorial Board, they took on the role of guest associate co-editors and helped solicit manuscripts and reviewers. They did a wonderful job managing the editorial production of the resultant featured articles in this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with them, and I am proud of the results of their efforts. Read their Notes on the following pages to hear about the featured articles.

Otherwise, in this issue readers will want to catch up on what is going on in the State Education Department by reading Joseph Frey’s informative update. We thank the Deputy Commissioner of the Office of Higher Education for his continued recognition of the importance of keeping in touch with our membership through his invited semi-annual articles.

The remainder of the articles in this issue represents a sequel to our collaboration theme, which began in Volume 4, Issue 2. As you remember—because I know you are all avid readers of my Notes from the Editor in each issue—there were so many top-quality submissions and accepted manuscripts on this theme, we decided to run a second issue on the theme of collaboration. This issue offers more reports of research, self-study, and perspectives from teacher educators on various aspects of collaboration.

First, Benton, Stratton, and Stearns look at the effects of action research on teachers’ professional development, application to classroom instruction, and collaborative and reflective practice. Then, Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valenti share the results of their exploratory study, which emerged from the work of a regional prekindergarten-18 leadership preparation consortium based in the Lower Hudson Region of New York State. Next, Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Wolfson, Ramirez-Bello, and Vulaj describe two urban elementary PDS self-studies utilizing the NCATE PDS self-assessment structure; and Beitzel shares how to construct and interpret boxplots to aid the collaborative process of monitoring the outcomes of assessments that are key indicators of program quality. The last article on collaboration comes from Vermette, Jones, Jones, and Kester-Phillips. These colleagues tell how Niagara University’s model for public exhibitions of understanding has helped their preservice teachers’ development. Finally, we offer several what-are-you-reading snapshot reviews from our NYACTE Executive Board and from the professors at Lehman College, CUNY, followed by book reviews from Kamina, VanSlyke-Briggs, and Dean.

Don’t miss the Call for Manuscripts at the end of this issue. We’re looking for manuscripts related to instructional technology in teacher education for a themed issue. Check the deadline dates for submissions.

In closing, as always—but I can never say it enough—thanks to our readers, authors, reviewers, this issue’s guest associate co-editors, the NYACTE Executive Board, and the journal’s National Editorial Board for their continued support. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge Paul Vermette who initiated the idea of offering a themed issue on collaboration. This journal is a true example of a collaborative effort.

Cindy LassondeEditor

START NEW PAGE

Emphasis on Special Education and Inclusion within Teacher Preparation for All Students:

Notes from the Guest Associate Co-editors

At the April 2010 Convention and Expo for the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan addressed the 6,000+ participants with a plea that students with disabilities be included in all aspects of their educational experience. Although it has been 35 years since the 1975 passage of Public Law 94-142 (Education of All Handicapped Children Act), we continue to work at including students with disabilities in their education at the same rate as their peers without disabilities. We believe that some of the responsibility for this lies with teacher education programs: To what extent are teacher education programs preparing our future teachers for all students? Although students with disabilities may receive special education services, there is an assumption that students will receive their education in the general education classroom. Therefore, when it comes to teacher preparation, we have an obligation to prepare general classroom teachers for special education and inclusion, even as “individualized instruction” remains the primary domain of special educators. Moreover, with education reform and the expectation that general classroom teachers will hold a greater diversity of students to a higher educational standard, our teachers today need more than ever to be prepared for the full range of student ability and experience. To this end, we approached Editor Cindy Lassonde and the National Editorial Board of Excelsior about placing a special emphasis on preparing teachers for special education and inclusion as part of the “forum for research-based discourse to inform the preparation and professional development of educators.”

We are grateful that this issue of Excelsior brings two articles to that forum that address our goals. First, Hildenbrand’s “You Really Have to Specify What You’re Talking about When You Say “Co-teaching” brings to light the continued differences that teachers and teacher educators may have when referring to co-teaching. Second, “Collaboration for Inclusion: Authentic Experiences in Teacher Preparation” by Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly describes one college’s attempt to explicitly teach collaboration skills to preservice teachers and strengthen teacher-family collaboration.

As guest associate co-editors, we would first like to thank Cindy Lassonde for being open to our idea to put a special emphasis on preparing teachers for special education and inclusion and to guide us in our other purpose, which was to learn more about the editing process. She has been the consummate teacher: patient and attentive, while giving us enough freedom to make mistakes and providing us with enough guidance to help us learn from them. We thank you, Cindy, for your editorial leadership and kind support. We are grateful for all we have learned while working with you!

Furthermore, our desire to bring attention to special education and inclusion as part of teacher preparation discourse would not have been possible without the help and support of our colleagues across the country in the field of education and related services. We are grateful to our friends and colleagues who responded so graciously to our call for manuscripts and for help to review the many that we received. Your insightful comments, commitment to rigor, and shared passion about meeting the needs of all students helped support our goal. Additionally,

you also showed us patience and understanding as we worked through the editorial process, learning as we went. Thank you for being wonderful colleagues!

Finally, we would like to thank and acknowledge each other. Working as guest associate co-editors has truly been a team process. We have been reminded that two heads are, indeed, better than one, and that collaboration—while a lot of work—is well worth the effort!

Patrice W. Hallock and Alicja RiegerGuest Associate Co-editors

Biographies of Guest Associate Co-editorsPatrice W. Hallock, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Education at Utica College.  She holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies from the University of New Hampshire with a focus on early childhood special education.  She is a qualitative researcher with experience in ethnography and grounded theory.  Her research interests include working with families, child development in the context of poverty, and teacher dispositions.  She teaches courses in inclusion, diversity, special education methods, and early intervention at Utica College, where she is also a member of the Institutional Review Board.  She is a member of the Division for Early Childhood and the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children.  Email: phallock@utica.edu

Alicja Rieger is Associate Professor at the Department of Early Childhood and Special Education at Valdosta State University.  She was graduated from Krakow Pedagogical University in Poland where she earned an M.A. in Special Education.  She received her Ph.D. in Special Education from Syracuse University. Both her publications as well as presentations reflect her strong interest in innovative research in the area of inclusion in disability studies. She is particularly interested in the presence and function of humor in families that have a member with a disability. Other areas of her research include second language acquisition and culturally responsive teaching. As a bilingual teacher education faculty member, she utilizes her own experiences and knowledge as a second language learner of English in her methods courses that prepare future teachers. Email: arieger@valdosta.edu

Start new page. This begins page 1.

Update Fromthe New York State Education Department

On the Horizon

INSERT FIGURE #1 HERE

Joseph P. FreyDeputy CommissionerOffice of Higher Education

During the summer and into early fall, the New York State Education Department (NYSED) and the Board of Regents will be engaged in two critical areas relating to teacher preparation in New York State. The first relates to the development of teaching standards, which will serve as the foundation for:

Transforming teacher preparation programs; Assessing the performance and preparedness of teacher candidates for certification at the

initial and professional certification levels; Guiding the performance evaluation of practicing teachers using their annual professional

performance review; Identifying practice-based professional development; and Providing the basis for defining the various roles in the teacher career ladder as well as skills

and behaviors needed at each level.

In addition, at its May 2010 meeting, the Regents discussed whether the Department should continue with the Regents Accreditation of Teacher Education (RATE) accreditation process. I would like to address both of these issues in my column.

At its April 2010 meeting, the Board of Regents directed the State Education Department (SED) to begin to collaborate with the educational community and all its interested parties in developing teaching standards that will inform all processes and programs defined above. We began this work in May and brought together approximately 50 educators representing all sectors of the educational community in New York State. In addition, as we develop teaching standards, we are collaborating with the initiative by the New York State United Teachers under a grant from the American Federation of Teachers. This initiative also includes the development of teaching standards that would inform in-service teacher evaluations and professional development. Our goal is to establish one set of teaching standards that will inform preservice teacher education, induction, professional development, and teacher evaluation.

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 5, Number 1 Fall/Winter 2010 1

Running head from here to end of article should be: FreyWe are working very hard to provide the Regents in the fall with a draft set of teaching

standards they can endorse. We are on a very tight timeline because the teaching standards are needed for the development of the new practice-based performance assessment for initial teacher certification. As we transform the way in which we assess whether teacher candidates have the necessary knowledge and skills to receive initial teacher certification, there will be a clear impact on teacher preparation programs throughout New York State. As we stated in the May 2010 item, the teaching standards will define the requirements and expectations for our certification of new teachers. Specifically,

The standards will form the basis for the assessment of the knowledge and skills required of teachers before they enter a classroom. They will also provide a guide for candidates seeking certification through a detailed explanation of the behaviors and skills that are required of a successful teacher.

The observable behavior and skills associated with the standards can be demonstrated in the classroom. A portfolio that contains a record of practice consisting of artifacts in electronic, digital media (e.g., videos, audio, texts, or graphics) can capture teacher behavior and provide work products for analysis by the preparation institution and the State Education Department. Portfolio artifacts may include videos depicting classroom instruction, lesson plans and assessments, and self-evaluations. (http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2010Meetings/May2010/0510hed2.doc.)Our goal here is to create true transparency to ensure that college faculty, teacher

candidates, and the P-12 educators clearly understand the knowledge and skills teachers will need to possess and how those skills will be assessed for the purposes of initial certification. At present, we are estimating this performance assessment will be available and required for initial certification for all students graduating in May 2013 and thereafter. In addition, we will be using these performance assessments for the pilots of the clinically based graduate teacher preparation programs. For the candidates in a pilot program, the performance assessments will be available by May 2012 as a requirement for initial certification. However, we will wait a full year before we roll out these assessments for all teacher education candidates in New York State.

Starting this summer, Assistant Commissioner Robert Bentley will be forming workgroups to assist the State Education Department and its testing vendor to develop a high-quality performance assessment that will reflect the knowledge and skills the new teaching standards will establish for teacher education candidates in New York State. We will be asking teacher educators to be full partners in the development of these performance assessments and we will ensure all teacher educators have the ability to comment on the key element of any assessments that are established. Along the way, we will establish checkpoints for receiving feedback from the educational community. In addition, approved teacher preparation programs throughout the State will be involved during this process in piloting the new assessments and the electronic management systems to be used in the implementation of these new assessments.

Secondly, as you know, for the last nine years the SED and the Board of Regents implemented RATE. At present, 30 campuses have received accreditation of their teacher education programs through the RATE process. Over the last year, because of budgetary restrictions and reduction in staffing, we have not been able to maintain the level of accreditation visits to meet the needs of our 30 institutions. At the May 2010 meeting of the Board of Regents, we discussed the possibility of phasing out the RATE program and allowing the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and Teacher Education

Accreditation Council (TEAC) to be the accreditors for all teacher education programs in New York State.

After a very thorough conversation, it was agreed that we need to present the Regents with a plan to phase out the RATE program in New York State. Acknowledging that staffing will be very difficult for the State Education Department over the next few years, we must be fair to all institutions and ensure that they get timely feedback on their accreditation visits. This fall, we will be establishing a schedule for a phase-out of the RATE process. We have contacted NCATE and TEAC and they have indicated a willingness to accredit the programs formerly accredited through the RATE process. Shortly, I will be sending out to the RATE accredited institutions a proposed schedule for the transfer of accreditation to one of these national organizations. We will clearly work with all 30 campuses to make sure no institutions are put in jeopardy of their programs having a break in accreditation.

I truly believe that the RATE process has added value to teacher education in New York State. Over the nine years that I have been involved with the program, I have seen all of the peer review reports from the RATE process. I have seen how campuses have increased their resources for teacher education to meet the State’s standards. The RATE process, in my opinion, was a developmental approach that worked with institutions to build up their capacity to offer strong and quality teacher education programs in New York State. We have completed the first cycle of accreditation visits, and we now turn towards our colleagues at TEAC and NCATE to assume a larger responsibility for teacher education accreditation in New York State.

As always, my colleagues in the Office of College and University Evaluation will continue to work with TEAC and NCATE as we review and accredit teacher education programs in New York State.

In summary, I want to thank all our teacher educators across New York State for their full engagement in all statewide activities regarding teaching and teacher education. It is heartening to see that so many of our professionals are committed to offering the best possible programs and are willing to volunteer their work and their expertise to assist us in establishing quality teacher standards, teacher education programs, professional development, and all components in the teacher education pipeline. Once again, I appreciate your efforts and I thank you for your support and good work.

Author BiographyJoseph Frey is the Deputy Commissioner, Office of Higher Education for the New York State Education Department. Mr. Frey has been with the State Education Department for 30 years serving in various leadership positions and has worked extensively with the New York State Board of Regents on teacher- and leader-preparation initiatives.

Start new page here

Featured Articles on Teacher Preparationfor Special Education and Inclusion

You Really Have to Specify What You’re Talking about When You Say “Co-teaching”: Student Teachers in “Co-taught” Classrooms

Susan HildenbrandSt. John Fisher College

AbstractCo-teaching is increasingly common, and research has established that co-teaching has

academic and social benefits for students (Hunt, Hirose-Hatae, Doering, Karasoff, & Goetz, 2000; Peck, Staub, Gallucci, & Schwartz, 2004). This action research study of eight student teachers explored how student teachers responded to co-teaching with a peer. Findings show that although identified as “co-taught,” some teaching practices were not team-taught. Preservice teachers faced challenges in co-teaching, and a community of practice supported the praxis of preservice teachers. Suggestions for future research center on studies that inform teacher training.

***This action research study explores the experiences of four pairs of preservice teachers as

they co-taught for one of two student teaching placements. Co-teaching is more and more prevalent in elementary classrooms today; the result is a range of experiences and understandings about what co-teaching means and how it benefits all students. Exposing preservice teachers to co-teaching during student teaching adds a level of preparation to their experience base. This study gave them the opportunity to immerse themselves in co-teaching in a supported community of practice.

Literature ReviewIn the last several decades, federal legislation and cultural expectations of equality for all

learners in the classroom converged around inclusive practices in today’s classrooms. The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) emphasizes access to state assessment, and Boundy and Karger (2008) note that the importance of including students receiving special education in such assessments “cannot be overstated” (p. 36). Similarly, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) emphasizes the need for students with disabilities to have access to high-quality curriculum and be assessed based on state standards. The result is an emphasis on students with disabilities spending all or part of their school day in the general education classroom with their nondisabled peers (Kamens, 2007). The positive effects of such inclusive practices are well established in the literature. For example, Hunt, Hirose-Hatae, Doering, Karasoff, and Goetz (2000) conducted focus groups with elementary teachers and discovered that students with and without disabilities

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 5, Number 1 Fall/Winter 2010 X

Running head from here to end of article should be: Hildenbrandin the elementary inclusive classrooms experienced these benefits: feelings of competency and self-esteem, academic and social achievement, mastery of content by teaching other students, the development of a social conscience, and the ability to work through differences to complete a task.

Co-teaching represents one delivery model for inclusive practice that places one general education teacher and one special education teacher in an inclusive classroom for the purpose of working together to instruct the diverse learners in their classroom (Friend & Cook, 2003). There are many advantages of co-teaching for students and teachers. In a three-year qualitative investigation of current school delivery models, Walther-Thomas (1997) found that benefits to students with disabilities included improved self-confidence and self-esteem, improved academic performance, increased performance of appropriate social skills, and the development of more socially acceptable and beneficial peer relationships. Peck, Staub, Gallucci, and Schwartz (2004) found that students without disabilities in an inclusive classroom were affected positively “in terms of their perception of themselves, and their awareness of the needs of others” (p. 140). As for the academic achievement gains for students without disabilities in inclusive classrooms, Hunt, Hirose-Hatae, Doering, Karasoff, and Goetz (2000) found greater growth on curriculum-based assessment measures than those in traditional, non-inclusive classes.

Supporters of co-teaching claim it is worthwhile because it allows the special educator to “be directly involved in the instructional support of the general educator, planning and teaching lessons together” and can “provide a direct means of a special education service delivery that is neither stigmatizing or isolating to special education students” (Weiss, 2004, p. 219). A similarly positive comment is found in Tobin (2005), who notes that co-teaching allows teachers to “transcend the sense of isolation that quickly leads to burnout and departure from the profession” (p. 320).

In spite of the documented benefits of co-teaching for teachers and students, many teachers are hesitant about co-teaching. Teachers, ranging from preservice teachers to multi-year veterans, agree that specific training is needed to use co-teaching methods effectively in the inclusive classroom (Carnell & Tillery, 2005; Kamens, 2007; Kohler-Evans, 2006; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007; Stang & Lyons, 2008). In a meta-synthesis study of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms by Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007), a common theme was the need for specific teacher training in co-teaching.

One solution to this training deficit is to embed opportunities for co-teaching within teacher preparation programs so that beginning teachers have the tools to respond to the reality of inclusive and co-taught classrooms. Studying preservice teachers as they practice co-teaching is a relatively unexamined area. In particular, giving preservice teachers the opportunity to take part in a co-teaching experience with another student teacher while student teaching is not prevalent in the current literature field.

Preservice teachers are frequently exposed to courses that are co-taught by faculty and observe some level of co-teaching in the field, but are rarely allowed the opportunity to co-teach themselves in the classroom (Carnell & Tillery, 2005; Griffin, Jones, & Kilgore, 2006; Stoddard, Braun, Hewitt, & Koorland, 2006). For example, although Kamens and Casale-Giannola (2004) placed five student teachers with two supervising teachers for one semester, the student teachers mainly saw collaboration between the supervising teachers taking place as opposed to teaching collaboratively themselves. The student teachers felt overwhelmed when collaborating with two

mentor teachers at one time, and they had fewer opportunities to use the co-teaching strategies as equal partners. Focus group transcripts revealed the “presence of different practicing teachers with diverse styles and strengths provided opportunities for sharing varied ideas and resources” (Kamens & Casale-Giannola, 2004, p. 23), but this experience lacked the equality of co-teaching with another student teacher.

Consequently, the researchers suggest that current preservice courses lack the development of skills and practices related to co-teaching and collaboration and do not give these prospective teachers the opportunity to use these skills in fieldwork and student teaching courses. One study that did design an opportunity for two preservice teachers to co-teach in the same student teaching placement explored the experiences of “two pairs of preservice teachers who co-taught as they were placed with teams of collaborating supervising teachers for a semester-long student teaching experience” (Kamens, 2007, p. 155). The researcher found this experience was overwhelmingly positive and beneficial to the participants. As they learned how to plan and implement instruction with another professional, explore their own teaching style, and examine what they bring to the co-teaching relationship, they began to believe that co-teaching could work. In addition, the preservice teachers posited that their “self-esteem was enhanced as they discovered that they have expertise to share with another teacher” (Kamens, 2007, p. 163).

All of the studies dealing with preservice teachers and the concept of co-teaching in the inclusion classroom share one powerful conclusion: Teacher preparation should be modified to expose preservice teachers to the spectrum of co-teaching options and inclusive strategies. Such exposure should allow preservice teachers to gain confidence as a collaborative teacher for all learners in the classroom (Carnell & Tillery, 2005; Garriott, Miller, & Snyder, 2003; Jung, 2007; Kamens & Casale-Giannola, 2004; Novak, Murray, Scheuermann, & Curran, 2009). Furthermore, Jung (2007) found student teachers who participated in guided field experiences expressed positive attitudes that were significantly more positive than student teachers who only completed a course focused on including students with special needs in inclusive classrooms. Therefore, preservice teachers who have access to inclusive, co-taught classrooms during their student teaching are provided the opportunity to gain crucial knowledge and experience. Such gains prepare teachers for the influx of diverse learners in all classrooms. Therefore, “it is clear that providing realistic, collaborative experiences for preservice teachers can help to prepare them for the realities of the inclusive classroom” (Kamens, 2007, p. 165).

The findings in this manuscript are part of a larger action research study undertaken as doctoral research. The purpose of the research was to explore how to include a co-teaching student teaching placement experience in an inclusive elementary teacher preparation program to better prepare student teachers for co-teaching. This study is one response to the recommendation that teacher education programs “set up co-teaching exercises and/or internships whereby general education and special education preservice teachers have the opportunity to co-teach together” (Cramer & Nevin, 2006, p. 271). Student teachers in this study participated in two seven-week placements. One placement was a co-taught experience with another student teacher, and that seven-week experience is the focus of this study.

MethodologyThis study was conducted as action research at a small liberal arts college in western New

York. Action research is a problem-solving process that does not have a true beginning or ending, but is cyclical in nature. According to Anderson, Herr, and Nihlen (2007),

Action research is sometimes described as an ongoing series of cycles that involve moments of planning actions, acting, observing the effects and reflecting on one’s observations. These cycles form a spiral that result in refinements of research questions, resolution of problems, and transformations in the perspectives of researcher and participants. (p. 3)

Using action research as the methodology for this study allowed for flexible responses to meet the changing needs of the preservice teachers as they began their co-teaching journey.

This study required a theoretical focus that supports tangible change while addressing collaboration and the phenomenon of shifting attitudes of preservice teachers. Two theories that support these needs are Situated Learning Theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and Mezirow’s (1994) Transformative Learning Theory. Both theories support the belief that authentic learning is most likely to take occur in a community of learners in which reflection and discussion can take place freely.

Situated Learning Theory asserts that learning takes place through experiences and the social construction of knowledge; one important component when using this theory is to establish a “community of practice” which is a shared forum for discussion, debate, and learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Transformative Learning Theory defines learning as a process of reflection and action; this took place throughout the study using reflective journals and whole group seminars (Brown, 2005).

Four research questions guided this study: First, what are the needs and concerns of student teachers as they co-teach in an inclusive placement? Second, what support can student teaching seminars offer to support student teachers in an inclusive, co-teaching placement? Third, what strategies help student teachers be more successful and comfortable in an inclusive, co-teaching placement? Fourth, how does the experience of co-teaching with another student teacher compare with the experience of student teaching in a solo placement? The first two questions are the focus of this manuscript.

My Role as a ResearcherI was both instructor and researcher in this study. Using action research allowed me to

capitalize on my dual role as both “outsider in collaboration with insiders” and “insider” (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 2007). I was an “outsider in collaboration with insiders” in that I was not student teaching. I was an “insider” in that I examined and attempted to improve my practice as seminar creator and facilitator. I designed, implemented, studied, evaluated, and refined the seminar experiences by incorporating the needs and dilemmas voiced by the student teachers.

ParticipantsEight students took part in this study: six Caucasian females and two Caucasian males.

Potential participants were the 37 students eligible for student teaching in the semester; of this group, 12 were identified through a computer-based, random placement matching system in place in the Office of Field Experience and Student Teaching. Of the 37 potential subjects, 86% were female and 14% were male; thirty-four were Caucasian; one was African American; one was Hispanic, and one self-reported as Mixed Race. All 12 potential participants who were contacted agreed to be a part of the study, and the first eight students who accepted became the participants.

Table 1Participants___________________________________________________________________________Student teacher Gender Grade District SettingPseudonyms__________________________________________________________________________Chris/Christine Male/Female Fourth SuburbanMary/Margaret Female/Female Sixth UrbanBrad/Brianna Male/Female Second UrbanJennifer/Joan Female/Female First Rural

SettingsThe settings for the study were elementary schools in districts surrounding the college.

Two placements were in urban settings, one in a suburban setting, and one in a rural setting. Placements self-identified as “co-taught” to the Office of Fieldwork and Student Teaching according to the teachers in the classroom. Grades taught included first, second, fourth, and sixth. Two of the co-teaching placements took place in the first seven-week placement, and two co-teaching placements took place in the second seven-week placement. Seminar sessions were held throughout the 14-week semester.

Data Collection Data were collected in six ways. From students, I collected an e-mail reflection

assignment prior to beginning student teaching and seven reflective journals over the course of the semester. From co-teaching supervisors, I requested an open-ended questionnaire at the end of the placement. Of the eight supervising teachers, four completed it. I took extensive notes of classroom observations during all co-teaching placements, and I audiotaped and transcribed seven seminar sessions. Finally, I kept a reflective journal. The total data set included more than 300 pages of double-spaced text.

Data AnalysisAnalysis of the data sources began with traditional qualitative methods that employed an

inductive and iterative approach (Lichtman, 2006). These methods took into account my attempt to accomplish something different from the typical qualitative researcher as stated by Anderson, Herr, and Nihlen (2007): “We fold the results of our data gathering and analysis back into our sights to move them toward change. At its best, action research is disturbing research, potentially interrupting day-to-day practices” (p. 158). Action research allows the researcher to look at his or her own practice within the research cycle that may result in “refinements of research questions, resolution of problems, and transformations in the perspectives of researchers and participants” (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 2007, p.3). Unlike traditional qualitative research that does not encourage intervening in the research setting, action research demands some form of intervention throughout the research process (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 2007). In this study, the focus of the seminar sessions changed as data were collected and participant needs emerged.

The coding process included the development of some codes based on the literature and my research questions. These codes were revised as additional data were collected. As I collected each data source, I began the coding immediately. I highlighted initial codes and used a different color highlighter to make note of unanticipated codes. Then I compiled a t-chart for

each research question of initial codes and emerging codes and where these were found in the data sources. I derived secondary codes from this t-chart and continued to refine my codes.

To establish the validity and trustworthiness of the analysis process, I applied several criteria. These criteria included: triangulation by using six different data sources; maintaining a researcher’s journal which kept track of the ongoing data collection and analysis as well as my decision-making processes along the way; discussing with a critical friend and fellow doctoral student possible codes and themes while appreciating her viewpoint on the emerging findings; and member checking (Lichtman, 2006) where I discussed my coding, interpretations, and conclusions with selected participants for verification and input. Additionally, in each seminar with the student teachers, I presented my thoughts on the data and asked questions to clarify my interpretations and hypotheses about the emerging themes.

This approach to the analysis of the data fit well with the action research cycle because the research continually evolved according to the needs and reactions of the researcher and the participants.

FindingsThree findings emerged from this research. First, co-teaching teams did not consistently

use team teaching although self-identified by the teachers as “co-taught.” Second, some student teachers were skillful at implementing co-taught practice, while others struggled. Third, developing a community of practice supported the praxis of student teachers.

“We Co-teach”: The Disconnect Between Ideology and PracticeOne of the tenets that guide the dual certification program at the college is one of

collaboration between all educators who work with students. One strategy addressed in methods courses is co-teaching, which is consistently defined as “two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students in a single physical space” (Friend & Cook, 2003, p.1). The program’s ideology also includes a move towards team teaching as the most effective co-teaching model to best include all students in the classroom for the entire school day.

According to Friend and Cook (2003), there are six models of co-teaching: (1) one teach-one observe, (2) one teach-one assist, (3) alternative teaching, (4) parallel teaching, (5) station teaching, and (6) team teaching. Of the six models, “team teaching requires the greatest level of mutual trust and commitment” (Friend & Cook, 2003, p. 184). I believe that the team-teaching approach to co-teaching is the most beneficial to all learners in a classroom because it uses the expertise of both teachers and allows all students to remain in the classroom for all of the instruction and benefit from the strengths of both teachers.

What I found in the field was that the teams of teachers who had self-identified as “co-teaching” used a range of models and delivery of instruction, which did not always include team-teaching. The disconnect between what the preservice teachers are taught in their methods courses as best practice in co-teaching and what they saw in some co-teaching relationships is common with preservice teachers in the field, especially if they are attempting to use non-traditional teaching methods, like co-teaching, in a traditional classroom setting (Luehmann, 2007).

Briefly, here is how each of the four teacher teams taught together. In Chris and Christine’s placement, a fourth grade, the special education teacher came in one period per day

for math. This method was a one teach-one assist (Friend & Cook, 2003). Christine described this situation during the final seminar session:

I think it’s shocking how this was considered co-teaching and how it is definitely not co-teaching, and how our teachers are considered co-teachers and they are definitely not co-teachers. So it is just the whole aspect of what co-teaching is at different school districts.

Christine was frustrated by the difference between what she believed co-teaching to be and what she experienced in the field.

Mary and Margaret’s placement, a sixth grade, was composed of one general education teacher and one special education teacher together all day. Throughout the day, the special education teacher pulled aside a small group of students; this group was always composed of students with disability labels while the general education teacher taught the remainder of the class. The separation of large and small groups happened for all content, and the general education teacher never worked with the small group. This alternative model (Friend & Cook, 2003) was in place for the entire student teaching placement. One recommendation from the literature concerning the use of the alternative model is to rotate the students who are receiving the alternate instruction so that the same students are not always removed from the large group. For example, students could be placed into an alternative group for enrichment or based on learning style of preference (Conderman, Bresnahan, & Pederson, 2009); this was not modeled in this classroom.

In Brad and Brianna’s placement, two second grade general education teachers combined their classes. At the same time, a special education teacher was assigned to one of the classrooms. Brad was assigned to one of the general education teachers, and Brianna was assigned to the special education teacher. Although the two general educators team-taught many subjects, the special educator worked only with the students who were identified with special needs and never directly presented any content, using the alternative model of co-teaching (Friend & Cook, 2003). The special education teacher spent her day with all of the students with disability labels from one classroom. Students with disability labels from the other class were not included in this small group. The special education teacher did not work with the second general education teacher. Brianna observed:

I do understand that this is their first year working together, and it could be difficult planning and remaining on the same page. However, I feel at times like I am missing out on learning how to positively work together with a colleague in the field. Once Brad’s school based educator (SBE) leaves the room, my SBE normally has something negative to say.

This lack of communication proved difficult for both Brad and Brianna, as they were unclear of the roles that each educator played in this inclusive classroom.

Finally, Jennifer and Joan’s placement, a first grade, was an integrated classroom where the general educator and special educator both spent the entire day in the classroom, sharing the delivery of content using either a team teaching or parallel teaching model (Friend & Cook, 2003). This placement was the closest to the vision of co-teaching that I was hoping to find in the field. As Jennifer stated after her first week in this placement, “We collaborated and they collaborated. It was wonderful. Our teachers don’t function well without each other.” Jennifer and Joan were able to observe first-hand the power of team teaching and open communication between co-teachers and the positive impact of such practice on the classroom climate.

The lack of consistency in co-teaching practice is important to note because the overarching goal of the study was to design effective experiences for student teachers to support them in an inclusive, co-teaching placement in an inclusive classroom. However, what we saw in the field was not optimal in three of the four settings. As McKenzie (2009) states, “the variability in professional vernacular related to collaboration has led some professionals to note the absence of a universally consistent definition of ‘co-teaching’” (p.380), and this contributes to the confusion about the roles and responsibilities of teachers in a co-taught classroom. Because three classroom settings included models that were not best practice, it was challenging to support the preservice teachers in their co-teaching. In the next section, I review the finding related to the confusion preservice teachers felt about what co-teaching means in practice. Clearly, this second finding is strongly related to the range of models they experienced in the classroom.

Preservice Teachers’ Practice Some student teachers were skillful at implementing co-taught practice and were adept at

using co-teaching even when the supervising teachers did not team-teach. However, some of the student teachers did not go beyond the model the supervising teachers demonstrated in the classroom, even though they had been given the same knowledge base in their coursework leading up to student teaching.

In Chris and Christine’ classroom, the supervising teachers only co-taught for math, and the special education teacher did all of the planning and delivery of instruction. The only characteristic of co-teaching that they demonstrated was being in the same classroom at the same time for math instruction. In fact, when setting up observation times for Chris and Christine, Chris’ supervising special education teacher insisted that I leave open one of the remaining observations for a solo observation because she said that is “mostly what I do, mainly what I do” even though this team was chosen as a “co-teaching” placement. Although Chris and Christine did not get any modeling of the team teaching model, they chose to implement team teaching within their instruction during the one period a day they were together. When I observed them team teaching, they did an excellent job collaborating as equal partners in the planning and the implementation of their lessons. They navigated the disconnect between what they were seeing from their supervising teachers and what they understood to be best practices in co-teaching.

It was essential that the student teachers were given the opportunity to work through the disorienting dilemma (Mezirow, 1994) of a theory/practice disconnect with their peers and reflect on the experience and the tension and unfamiliarity with the feelings that came with this experience. If they had not been able to work through this disconnect during the seminar sessions, this dilemma may have remained unresolved and uncomfortable (Brown, 2005).

Mary and Margaret student taught in the same room all day, but they never worked with the whole class together using team teaching. Instead, they relied on the alternative teaching they saw modeled by their supervisors. Mary worked with the students with identified special needs, and Margaret worked with the students who were non-identified. The planning was done separately with Margaret responsible for all of the planning and Mary taking the completed plans and noting modifications. There was little interaction between the two groups or the two teachers. This was the co-teaching method modeled by their supervising teachers, and they never attempted another model of co-teaching. As Mary stated in her final reflective journal,

The method I feel most comfortable with using was alternative. I felt good about using alternative because it was the method we both observed our teachers using. It wasn’t a

drastic change for the students because they are most used to it.Margaret concurred with this observation: “I felt most comfortable implementing alternative teaching because this is what the students were most used to. The students in the classroom did not like a lot of change, and alternative is something that these teachers used quite frequently.”

Brad and Brianna planned collaboratively and used three different models of co-teaching as their delivery method: alternative teaching, parallel teaching, and team teaching. Their supervisors had a three-person co-teaching relationship (two general educators with one special educator), but only the two general educators team-taught and planned together. However, Brad and Brianna were very successful implementing alternative teaching, parallel teaching, and team teaching in spite of the lack of modeling and mentoring. Brad recognized the benefits to equally utilizing the strengths of both professionals to benefit all learners in the classroom by reflecting,

We were able to use each other’s strengths and abilities to create fun and enjoyable lessons and teaching experiences for the kids… it allows the teachers to play off one another, and overall, I think that it provides insight into what we are teaching.

Like Chris and Christine, this dyad was able to move beyond the basic co-teaching models being used by their supervising teachers and implement more complex co-teaching models.

Jennifer and Joan’s placement was the closest to the team teaching placement I had envisioned. The teachers were in the classroom together for the majority of the day (the special education teacher pushed into a kindergarten class for 30 minutes each morning). The pair planned the lessons together and shared in instruction. When I observed the supervising teachers instructing the students, their lessons flowed easily, and there appeared to be equality in the instruction. As Jennifer shared, “I felt most comfortable implementing team teaching because it was the way that both of our personalities worked out. We got along and loved sharing and playing off each other!”

The lack of consistency in the co-teaching models fostered rich discussion in the seminar sessions about each placement and how best to collaborate in each one. Co-teaching means different things to different teachers, and although “co-teaching” is used in today’s classrooms, “there is a lack consensus on the specific features required, such as the precise roles and responsibilities of both general and special education teachers” (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Graetz, Norland, Gardizi, & McDuffie, 2005, p. 261). This lack of a consistent definition transformed my thinking about co-teaching models. I shifted my focus from seeking an ideal co-teaching situation to searching for and identifying the value in the variety of co-teaching models and presentation styles.

Supporting Student Teachers: A Community of PracticeStudent teaching seminars are a common part of student teaching. What was unique

about this group was the fact that all student teachers had a placement that was co-taught with a peer, and both student teachers were in the seminar. In addition, because the participants were notified of their acceptance into the study four months before the study began, they had time to think about co-teaching before they began student teaching and to connect with their co-teaching partners before this experience started.

The third finding is the overwhelming benefits of the group seminar sessions in navigating the lack of consistent co-teaching models. Communities of practice form over time through a collective learning process that allows the members to co-construct knowledge and negotiate the roles of membership in the community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Although teacher educators and supervising teachers can present concepts and best practices to preservice teachers,

future educators need the opportunity to practice, discuss, and modify these concepts in an authentic situation, to achieve overall learning. This is true for co-teaching as well as other desired practices that we want student teachers to learn. Moreover, this praxis must occur with others because “learning is an integral and inseparable aspect of social practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 31). Because all student teachers co-taught one of their placements, they all had a new experience that they all shared during their student teaching seminars.

I expected to have structured seminar meetings with assigned readings that related to co-teaching, instructional strategies, and inclusive practice. This structure was quickly replaced with discussions about relationship and communication issues relative to the inconsistency of the models of co-teaching the student teachers were experiencing. However, the reality is that a continuum of co-teaching models and practices exists in the field. Allowing the student teachers to discuss the value and challenges of each model as they experienced it provided the support needed to be effective in any co-teaching situation.

What happened was that the community of practice listened to problems and concerns, and then we brainstormed possible solutions. This probably sounds familiar to student teacher supervisors; the student teachers need time to reflect, discuss problems, and support each other in sharing experiences. What was different about this series of seminars was the focus on co-teaching, which led to rich discussion about which models were most effective in each situation, how to communicate with each other and the mentor teachers, and how to navigate the disconnect between the theory and practice of co-teaching. Preservice teachers were able to use models other than those in use by their supervising teachers because of the supportive structure of the seminars. The communities of practices from Situated Learning Theory allowed us to move through “disorienting dilemmas” as a community and challenge what we all saw as problematic and narrow conceptualizations and interpretations of co-teaching.

For example, when Chris was challenged with a mentor teacher who negatively compared him to Christine, his co-teacher, he brought up the situation to the group for support and suggestions. He stated, “Thursday and Friday were not good days. My teacher just says little comments to me, like negative comments, like nothing supportive. It could be done, said, in better ways. Would you agree with that?” The group responded with encouraging words of support; Joan commented “For someone to say something like that is really uncalled for.” Being validated and knowing that he had the support of seven other individuals experiencing co-teaching supported Chris in managing the situation and being successful in his placement. Chris had revealed all of these insecurities and difficulties to me prior in his reflective journals, but the power of hearing the honest viewpoints of his community of learners was significant. Without the security and openness of a community of practice, the co-teaching placement would not have been as rich and educational for the participants.

Mary and Margaret also observed the disconnect between theory and practice within their practice; they saw alternative teaching being modeled by their supervising teachers. However, unlike the other dyads, they did not go beyond this modeling and only used alternative teaching in their own practice. Mary and Margaret were also experiencing relationship and communication issues between the two of them, which they revealed through individual reflective journals. Mary and Margaret were close friends prior to this experience, and they did not appear to want to bring attention to their conflicts. This unrest proved stressful, especially for Margaret, who took over the majority of the planning and presentation responsibilities. She was unsure how to navigate this lack of parity in this placement.

I guess my overall experience is different because I truly thought my co-teaching placement would be amazing. I thought working with Mary and being able to plan together would be so fun and exciting. The biggest challenge for me was working with someone who did not have similar ways of teaching and planning. Co-teaching is like a marriage, and in order to be completely successful, both sides truly need to work together and flow within the classroom. I thought this was a struggle for this to happen.

Margaret shared this tension with me in a reflective journal and voiced her preference to keep this confidential and not shared in the group seminars.

Although they were participants in the community of practice with their fellow preservice teachers, neither Mary or Margaret chose to share their own dilemmas and problems with their partners, which prevented them from benefiting from the group problem solving that the other participants were able to take advantage of. The level of participation in a community of practice can be an issue of engagement and participation, and both Mary and Margaret exhibited partial participation in the whole group seminar sessions (Wenger, 1998). The result was minimal change in their ability to move beyond the practice they saw modeled.

DiscussionThis research addressed two questions: What were the needs and concerns of student

teachers as they co-taught in an inclusive placement, and how do student teaching seminars support student teachers while they co-teach? Three themes emerged: teaching practices in the field were not consistently team-taught although self-identified as “co-taught;” some student teachers were skillful at implementing co-taught practice, while others struggled; and developing a community of practice supported the praxis of student teachers in the absence of modeling from mentor teachers.

The disconnect between theory and practice is not unexpected. As Luehmann (2007) states, “challenges greatly increase when the practice teaching experiences occur in traditional school settings, which may not embody and/or support the reform-based practices in university classes” (p. 826). The larger context of such a disconnect between theory and practice is that student teacher praxis needs to be supported and discussed; student teachers need communities of practice with mentors and peers to develop an understanding of their role in the schools. In addition, beginning teachers need support in considering, connecting, and integrating research-based implications with their practice, and a community of practice during whole group seminar sessions can provide this support (Luehmann, 2007).

Weiss and Brigham (2000) state that, overall, there are few reports about what teachers are actually doing in the classroom in regards to co-teaching, and this makes it difficult to prepare preservice teachers for the co-taught classrooms they will enter into during student teaching. Teachers identifying themselves as “co-teaching” when using any form of collaborative arrangement is also not entirely unexpected. The range of practices that are included under the umbrella of “co-teaching” is broad, with many interpretations. However, this reality supports the importance of building a shared vocabulary of co-teaching nationally. In their study of co-teaching, Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) conclude that “the practice of co-teaching as described in these investigations can hardly be said to resemble the truly collaborative models” as described, for example, by Cook and Friend (1995)” (p. 411).

Having the forum to speak freely about issues surrounding co-teaching was an integral part of this experience. The community of practice provided the supports needed by the student teachers. The underlying thread of a common experience made the seminars unique, and

allowed the participants to navigate the novel practice of co-teaching together as a community of practice. In order for student teachers to make sense of the discrepancies in the field, it is important that they not only have “opportunities to participate in relevant experiences and the discourse, but to have one’s participation interpreted and recognized, as well as valued and accepted, by self and others” (Luehmann, 2007, p. 833). Establishing communities of practice arranged around similar classroom placements gave the student teachers the opportunity for ongoing recognition of their work and the development of their professional identity.

LimitationsThere were several limitations to this research. The small number of participants in the

study and the limited geographic area of the placements may limit larger implications of this study. However, the information that emerged from the study may provide to other teacher educators in inclusive programs an example of a useful co-teaching placement and seminar model for further implementation at the preservice level.

A second limitation of the study was in the manner of participant recruitment. Although the participants were volunteers, they were randomly selected and placed in pairs, not able to choose their own partner. By not allowing them to choose their partners, a dimension of relationship building was compromised and unexplored. Limiting personal familiarity within the dyads limited the comparability of the findings with those of other programs in which choice is allowed.

Adhering to a seminar schedule that was based on the requirements of the institution was a third limitation. Because the student teachers are required to attend whole group training sessions for certification purposes, it was difficult to limit the seminar sessions to seven, purposely-placed small group sessions. This limitation encroached on the more appropriate, flexible scheduling of seminar sessions to meet the authentic need to gather as a group when issues arose. Having the ability to call the group together as needed may have increased the success of the problem solving sessions because conflicts and challenges did not typically arise according to the required small group seminar schedule.

Implications for PracticeIt is essential that preservice inclusive education teachers have the opportunity to observe

a variety of co-taught classrooms that utilize a variety of co-teaching models and best practices from the beginning of their fieldwork assignments (Stang & Lyons, 2008). The integration of these experiences throughout their preparation would increase their familiarity with co-teaching so they can begin co-teaching as they increase their teaching responsibilities within their fieldwork requirements.

A student teaching model of one experience as a co-teacher and the second as a sole teacher is an important consideration. This was successful in that student teachers navigated the challenge of collaborative planning and instruction, and then had the experience of working alone. According to Cramer and Nevin (2006), both general education and special education in-service teachers feel that there is a lack of preparation with respect to “inclusive education practices, collaboration, and co-teaching” (p. 270). Allowing preservice teachers the opportunity to co-teach in a structured, supportive environment addresses this perceived lack of preparation.

It is essential that, coupled with this model of student teaching, group seminar sessions are provided as a supportive environment for successful co-teaching strategies to be shared,

challenges to be discussed, and possible solutions to be explored by each of the participants as they all experience this model of student teaching.

Directions for Future ResearchFuture research endeavors in preservice co-teaching could examine the vocabulary

surrounding co-teaching models and techniques to help create a common vocabulary among inclusive supervising teachers. This study illustrated the lack of a common co-teaching vocabulary that contributed to the disconnect between theory and practice and the infrequent modeling of best practices in the different co-teaching models. Replicating this co-teaching model of student teaching with the accompanying whole group seminar sessions would add another layer of understanding to the needs of preservice teachers as they co-teach.

ReferencesAnderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. S. (2007). Studying your own school: An

educator’s guide to practitioner action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Boundy, K. R., & Karger, J. (2008). Special issues affecting inclusion of students withdyslexia in statewide assessment and their implications. Perspectives in Languageand Literacy, 34(4), 36-40.

Brown, K. M. (2005). Transformative adult learning strategies: Assessing the impact on preservice administrators’ beliefs. Educational Considerations, 32(2), 17-26.

Carnell, L. J., & Tillery, M. W. (2005). Preparing preservice teachers for inclusive coteaching: A new approach for mathematics methods instruction. Teaching Children Mathematics, 11(7), 384-389.

Conderman, G., Bresnahan, V., & Pedersen, T. (2009). Purposeful co-teaching: Real cases and effective strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Cramer, E., & Nevin, A. (2006). A mixed methodology analysis of co-teacher assessments.Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(4), 261-274.

Friend, M., and Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (4th ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Garriott, P. P., Miller, M., & Snyder, L. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education: What should teacher educators know? Action in Teacher

Education, 25(1), 48-54.Griffin, C. C., Jones, H. A., & Kilgore, K. L. (2006). A qualitative study of student teachers’

experiences with collaborative problem solving. Teacher Education and SpecialEducation, 29(1), 44-55.

Hunt, P., Hirose-Hatae, A., Doering, K., Karasoff, P., and Goetz, L. (2000). Community is what I think everyone is talking about. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5),305-317.

Jung, W. S. (2007). Preservice teacher training for successful inclusion. Education, 128(1),106-113.

Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative student teachingexperience for preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education,30(3), 155-165.

Kamens, M. W., & Casale-Giannola, D. (2004). The role of the student teacher in the co- taught classroom. The Teacher Educator, 40(1), 17-32.

Kohler-Evans, P. A. (2006). Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front of the kids. Education, 127(2), 260-264.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publishing, Inc.

Luehmannn, A. L. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation. Science Education, 91(5), 822-839. Mastripieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K.

(2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, andchallenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260-270.

McKenzie, R. G. (2009). A national survey of preservice preparation for collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(4), 379-393.

Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 44(4), 222-232.

Novak, J., Murray, M., Scheuermann, A., & Curran, E. (2009). Enhancing the preparationof special educators through service learning: Evidence from two preservice courses.International Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 32-44.

Peck, C. A., Staub, D., Gallucci, C., & Schwartz, B. (2004). Parent perception of the impacts of inclusion on their nondisabled child. Research and Practice for Persons

with Severe Disabilities, 29(2), 135-143.Scruggs, R. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive

classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-416.

Stang, K.K., & Lyons, B.M. (2008). Effects of modeling collaborative teaching for preserviceteachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31(3), 182-194.Stoddard, K., Braun, B., Hewitt, M., & Koorland, M. A. (2006). Teacher for all children:A combined elementary and special education teacher preparation program and three year evaluation. International Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 87-97.

Tobin, R. (2005). Co-teaching in language arts: Supporting students with learning disabilities. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(4), 784-801.

Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4),395-407.

Weiss, M. P. (2004). Co-teaching as science in the schoolhouse: More questions than answers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(3), 218-223.

Weiss, M. P., & Brigham, F. J. (2000). Co-teaching and the model of shared responsibility:What does the research support? In T. E. Scruggs and M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advance in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities (vol. 14, pp. 217-245). Oxford, UK:Elsevier Science.

Wenger, G. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Author BiographySusan Hildenbrand, Ed.D., is Assistant Professor in the Inclusive Education Department of the Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. School of Education at St. John Fisher College in Rochester, New York. 

Her research interests include co-teaching in the inclusive classroom. Email: shildenbrand@sjfc.edu

Start new page

Collaboration for Inclusion: Authentic Experiences in Teacher Preparation

Marie CiancaMichael WischnowskiSusan HildenbrandDaniel KellySt. John Fisher College

AbstractTeacher preparation programs rarely include courses that establish authentic partnerships

between families of children with special needs and teacher candidates. The purpose of this article is to describe a current undergraduate course at St. John Fisher College in Rochester, New York, that effectively addresses parent partnerships in preservice education and provides experiences for teacher candidates in four areas of identified need: teamwork, co-teaching, family collaboration, and professional dispositions. The article discusses the four areas within the context of published literature. The article also describes course development, partnership development with The Advocacy Center, course evaluation, and recommendations for teacher preparation programs.

***

The need for effective partnerships between schools and families has been consistently addressed in the professional literature and policymaking for many years, but for students with disabilities, the development of these home/school partnerships has been much more challenging (Blue-Banning, Summers, Frankland, Nelson, & Beegle, 2004; Harry, 2008; Stichter & Caldicott, 1999). Historically, a medical model was used by educators, which negatively labeled individuals and their problems while assuming that only a professional could evaluate the problem and administer the solutions (Blasi, 2002). This history is also rife with legal conflict between parents and schools and “continues to be beset by conflict and litigation, with both sides citing the mandate of law as the basis for disagreement” (Stichter & Caldicott, 1999, p. 252).

Partnerships in such a climate can be difficult to establish and maintain. Schneider (2007) noted that teachers have found collaboration difficult among themselves when they do not have a clear understanding of the definitions, purposes, and methods of collaboration as well as necessary relationship building skills. She stated: “Even when professionals embrace the ideal of collaboration, they may not have received adequate training in the skills of listening and accepting ideas within a group context (p. 9).” Even though collaborating with families of students with disabilities is challenging, the mandate for collaboration between families and service providers of students with disabilities was recognized for its benefits to students and became one of the six central tenets of the IDEA Improvement Act of 2004 (Harry, 2008).

However, there remains a gap between theory and practice for teachers with working

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 5, Number 1 Fall/Winter 2010 1

Running head from here to end of article: Cianca, Wischnowski, Hildenbrand, and Kelly with families of their students. While most schools actively facilitate the home-school partnership, not all teachers are prepared to be full participants in a collaborative environment, and the preparation of teachers for this professional responsibility remains unclear (Smiley, 2009). Welch and Brownell (2002) noted that many teacher preparation programs are void of a single course related to collaboration with families or other professionals. Yet, providing authentic opportunities for preservice teachers to collaborate with families will aid in the understanding of the complexities involved in a successful, respectful home-school partnership.

Recently, the President of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) says that “new approaches (need) to ensure that teacher education is relevant to classrooms of the 21st century….The new approach will…encourage institutions to place teacher candidates in more robust clinical experiences, and wrap coursework around practice” (Cibulka, 2009, p. 45). Similarly, Clift (2009) comments that while teacher education programs prepare new teachers to be aware of the differences and richness that comes from working with children across cultures and in special education, most teacher candidates do not work directly with students and their parents until teacher candidates are actually employed. This article describes an undergraduate teacher education course designed specifically to provide authentic collaboration with parents to teacher candidates in the semester before they student-teach.

Origins of the CourseIn 2005, the faculty of the School of Education at St. John Fisher College in Rochester,

NY mapped, rewrote, and reconfigured curriculum to better meet the needs of the current undergraduate teacher candidates, most of whom wanted dual certifications in childhood and special education. One result of this reconfiguration was to combine two special education courses—one devoted to families of students with special needs and another devoted to collaboration in special education. The new course weaved Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) content standards and recommended practices (2010) regarding these two subjects into a semester-long course entitled, Collaboration for Inclusion, a title reflective of the School’s focus on students with disabilities being served in the least restrictive environment.

The new course was developed and taught by a professor with a background in early childhood special education, an area that traditionally emphasizes the importance of families in their children’s education as well as the collaboration needed among all adults in a child’s life to provide needed supports (Hemmeter, Joseph, Smith, & Sandall, 2001). The first two semesters of the course set much of the foundation that remains today: a) working with an interdisciplinary team (Correa, Jones, Thomas, & Morsink, 2004); b) family systems theory (Lambie, 2007); c) parent-teacher collaboration (Davis & Yang, 2005); d) co-teaching and collaborative consultation models (Friend, M. & Cook, L., 2010; Kampwirth, 2005) and e) professional dispositions and reflective practices (Schon, 1995).

Partnership with The Advocacy CenterIn the spring preceding the third semester of the course, The Advocacy Center, a not-for-

profit organization providing an array of advocacy, legal, and independent living services for people with disabilities in the region, set out to create a speakers’ bureau of parents. The mission was to promote awareness. Parents were to be available to professionally and effectively “tell their stories” about issues of parenting, navigating the medical and educational systems, and

finding ways to successfully include their children and their families into society. The audiences for these speakers were to be community organizations, health care and school employees, policy makers and other potential neighbors or citizens. The Advocacy Center held focus groups, consisting of parents and other invited persons from these stakeholder groups. Results of the focus groups helped to form the curriculum for the speakers’ bureau preparation program.

One of the invited focus group participants was the Collaboration for Inclusion professor. He had been using a families textbook (Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, & Soodak, 2006) and case studies to teach aspects of family systems, development, demographics, and routines. With access to a professionally trained speakers’ bureau, he wondered if he could supplement or replace “paper parents” in his course with parents whose children attended the schools where teacher candidates could be placed.

With the cooperation of the public education coordinator for The Advocacy Center, in the fall semester of 2006, a new iteration of Collaboration for Inclusion began. A group of twenty teacher candidates were randomly assigned into four teams for the semester. In the context of special education, they initially learned collaboration skills, including setting ground rules, defining their charge or mission, facilitating meetings and writing agendas and minutes and then practiced throughout the semester. Each team received two major projects: one that would demonstrate a lesson or lessons devoted to a specific co-teaching model (Friend & Cook, 2010) and a semester-long project that involved collaborating with a “real” family of a child with special needs, one of the speakers’ bureau families. The team and family experiences were the subject of reflective writings that would also assess professional dispositions and written communication skills (Schon, 1995).

Since that time, four other professors have taught sections of the course. One section was co-taught by general education and special education faculty members. Although there has been some variation in course delivery, the objectives, and the professional standards, upon which the course is based, have remained the same.

Philosophy and Guiding Principles of the CourseThe School of Education at St. John Fisher College recognized that, more than ever, all

educators collaborate with other adults to make educational decisions regarding curriculum, planning, instruction, assessment, and the coordination of services for all students. However, these decisions were more complex for students with exceptional learning needs and their families. Teacher candidates, therefore, needed to reflect on, among other skills, their personal and professional communication and behavior. Especially as novices in the field, they needed to consider the possible impact of their words and actions on students, parents, and colleagues. This was best developed through the experience of working in multidisciplinary teams and developing a partnership with a family while still at the preservice level. Learning the skills of a self-managed team charged with improving their own knowledge about an issue faced by a family with a child with a disability builds empathy as well as collaboration skills (Barry, 1991). Also, the values of diversity, achievement, compassion, knowledge, and service were integrated into this course with an eye toward social justice in a sometimes unjust educational system and society.

Objectives and Standards of the CourseTable 1 lists the major topics of the course as well as the CEC and Association for

Childhood International (ACEI) standards that informed the course and helped it adhere to

NCATE accreditation guidelines. The table also references the assignments of the course and the rubrics that were used to assess learner outcomes. Course activities and assignments contained aspects of several major themes and standards, and were intended to interact, build upon, and reinforce lessons throughout the semester.

Table 1Standards from National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education ( NCATE), Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), and Association for Childhood International (ACEI) /Assessments/ Learning Outcomes

Standard Topic Assessment Rubric Learner outcomesCEC 1K3-4, 7K5, 10K1-4

Models of Consultation, Collaboration, and Teamwork

Collaboration ProjectLesson PresentationJournal

Collaboration ProjectLesson Planning Reflective Journal

To collaborate with other professionals on projects to better meet the needs of students and families.

CEC 1K7, 2K3-4, 6K2-3, 7S3, 10K3

Family/Cultural Issues

Collaboration ProjectJournal

Collaboration ProjectReflective journal

To become familiar with cultural and family issues, and how assumptions about culture affect interactions with a student’s family; To modify instruction and communication techniques based on input from the family.

CEC 1K4, 3K1-2, 10K2, 10K4

Own Communication and Collaboration skills, styles, roles

Journal Reflective Journal

To become aware of one’s own communication and collaboration skills, styles, and roles, and how these characteristics affect communication and collaboration with others.

CEC 1K3 Interagency Collaboration

Collaboration Project Collaboration Project

To collaborate with other professionals from the agencies to meet individual students’ needs.

CEC 1K3-4, 10K1 Purposes, benefits, and barriers to collaboration

Collaboration projectJournal

Collaboration ProjectReflective journal

To list the purposes, benefits, and barriers to collaboration, and will be able to overcome the barriers in order to better meet the needs of the students.

CEC 7S2 Demonstration of co-teaching skills

Lesson Presentation Co-teaching lesson plan

To design and implement co-teaching lesson plans based on various models of co-teaching.

CEC 7S Communication Strategies

Lesson Presentation Co-teaching lesson plan

To clearly convey needs and ideas to a co-teacher in a co-teaching situation as well as clearly convey lessons to students, using a co-teaching model.

ACEI 2b, 3e, 5a Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking

Ongoing Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking

To read, write, listen and speak professionally and competently.

CEC 9 Professional Language and Conduct

Ongoing Professional Dispositions

To use professional language and conduct in all situations throughout the course. Candidates will reflect on their performance in all areas.

CEC 7S, 10S Fieldwork 15 hours (with Course 371)

Student Work Portfolio Rubric

To apply their new learning in a practical setting.

Activities and Assignments of the CourseTeacher candidates in Collaboration for Inclusion were presented with four key areas that

overlapped and reinforced relevant approaches as defined in the literature. Each of the areas played an important role in achieving course outcomes and included activities that brought concepts and skills to life. The key areas were: Teamwork; Co-teaching approaches; Family Collaboration; and Professional Dispositions. Figure 1 offers a graphic organizer that depicts the connection and reinforcement of course components in Collaboration for Inclusion.

Teamwork. In a recent survey of special educators, McKenzie (2009) pointed out that effective collaboration between teachers requires skills and experiences that contribute to team development and reflection. These skills and experiences can begin in preservice education. So, when teaching the collaboration course, faculty members began by randomly dividing candidates into small groups for the length of the semester. Teams of four to six teacher candidates worked together, shared responsibilities and pursued major assignments collaboratively. This served three purposes. First, each group got to know each other’s preferences and parameters as they developed mutual language around their objectives and activities for the course. Second, each group gained experience as a team member and contributor in preparation for the committees and interdisciplinary teamwork prevalent in schools. Third, team members were able to practice and apply professional dispositions that were a part of the course and tied to professional standards.

Because of the need to effectively connect and understand the purpose and focus of the team’s work, the first assignment was to develop a group mission statement that reflected the objectives of the course. Groups also discussed and formulated ground rules. This exercise and numerous course activities provided opportunities for team members to acknowledge their external audiences and their individual values and talents (Emery, 1996).

Co-teaching Approaches. Another aspect of collaboration, co-teaching, was part of the course as a result of changes in the law in the IDEA Improvement Act of 2004. The origins of co-teaching can be traced to the Progressive Education movement of the 1960s when it was used to model the social nature of learning and the value of collaboration between individuals in a classroom (Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2004). In the 1970s, co-teaching was used minimally to

Figure 1. Components of the course, Collaboration for Inclusion.

support legislative school reforms that encouraged teachers to modify instruction for an increasingly diverse student population. At this point in educational history, research on co-teaching began appearing in the field’s literature.

Students with disabilities enjoyed many educational gains in the 1980s and 1990s. Improved academic and social skills, improved attitudes and self-concepts, and an increased likelihood of positive peer relationships are products of the co-teaching movement. The research conducted around co-teaching at this time focused on existing co-teaching models and the subsequent benefits and challenges. For example, one study of 23 schools across eight districts that implemented co-teaching models in their classrooms used teacher interviews and surveys to conclude that these positive changes resulted from more teacher time and attention and an enhanced sense of community within the general education classroom (Walther-Thomas, 1997). Having more than one adult in the classroom enabled the co-teachers to respond more efficiently to the many individual needs in a typical classroom. This visible benefit of co-teaching urged more professionals to attempt this type of collaboration (Hunt, Hirose-Hatae, Doering, Karasoff, and Goetz, 2000; Peck, Staub, Gallucci, and Schwartz, 2004). These reported successes, in conjunction with the impending Individuals with Disabilities Act (2001) and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 served as the impetus for the co-teaching movement to shape the landscape of future educational practices.

Unfortunately, co-teachers in the field reported a lack of training in co-teaching models and practices and feel unprepared to co-teach (Kamens, 2007; Kohler-Evans, 2006; Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie, 2007; Stang & Lyons, 2008). One solution to this training deficit was to include different opportunities for co-teaching within coursework and field experiences to increase familiarity with the different models of co-teaching as well as establish a collaborative relationship with a colleague in authentic situations.

In Collaboration for Inclusion, for the first group project, students read a book detailing strategies for working collaboratively with families: Parents and Teachers Working Together (Davis & Yang, 2005). Each group taught two chapters from the book to the rest of the class. This specific group project offered an opportunity to pair up with a colleague, learn and present content to fellow teacher candidates. Teams learned about presentation skills, logistics and planning. Teams also used this opportunity to begin practicing co-teaching approaches: team teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, station teaching or combinations of these models. At the same time, teams learned about parent and family collaboration strategies from content they were reading and preparing to present. Teacher candidates wrote up their presentations in a lesson plan format, follow a rubric that described assessment metrics for the presentation and received feedback from peers and their professor. This co-teaching practice session simultaneously anchored candidates with knowledge about parent strategies and built confidence for delivering co-taught lesson plans in the field with P-12 students.

Family Collaboration. The passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act in 1975, and subsequent amendments in the 1990s and 2000s, established a clear role for families in the provision of services for children with disabilities. However, relationships between teachers and parents were not always easy and often became uncomfortable or even adversarial (Osher & Osher, 2002). With concerted efforts to introduce the spirit of collaboration between teachers and families, the professors who teach Collaboration for Inclusion purposefully included a community agency as a partner to authentically include parents in teacher preparation. Each semester, professors called upon their partnership with The Advocacy Center, which has an established parent training program for parents and individuals

with disabilities. Participants in the training program became part of a speakers’ bureau, learned how to present and deliver their message to a variety of audiences, received feedback and gained confidence. Parent participants were then matched to work collaboratively with teacher candidate teams in the Collaboration course to help build collaborative skills and experiences.

As The Advocacy Center partnership unfolded, professors made a concerted effort to break the “provider-driven paradigm” which tries to fix families in favor of a “family-driven paradigm”, where families are respected for their contributions and encouraged to collaborate (Osher & Osher, 2002). To this end, after candidate teams completed their mission statement and ground rules, they began a semester-long relationship with one of the families from The Advocacy Center. Team members signed a confidentiality agreement to receive the IEP (individualized education plan) of the child with a disability in each family. Similar to teachers in the field, candidates were surprised by the levels of need included in the IEP and were often intimidated by the deficit-based descriptions for each child. Some candidates even expressed concerns about how to relate or communicate with the child and his/her family. The course provided an opportunity to intervene and reflect upon the concerns and preconceived ideas that arise when teachers receive an IEP before getting to know a student.

Following the IEP review, teams in Collaboration for Inclusion were responsible for meeting their assigned family and approaching the interaction with an open mind. To do so, they created and mailed a joint letter to their partner families, describing themselves and their program. They arranged a mutually convenient time to meet with the family to get to know the child with special needs and his/her family members. A team liaison followed through with a telephone call to the partner family to confirm a meeting date. This face-to-face meeting usually occurred in the parents’ home and provided an authentic opportunity for each team to move beyond the “paper description” on the IEP. Teams met their partner families for the first time in an environment comfortable for the parents. Teacher candidates were often pleasantly surprised during this first face to face meeting and expressed surprise at how the IEP and its descriptions seem disconnected from the child or young adult’s actual persona.

Each class section was comprised of four teams paired with four families who shared their stories about their children and their family’s search for inclusive settings. After the team/family initial meeting, team members “hosted” an in-class presentation by the family to the entire class. Candidates benefited in very specific ways from these presentations. Teacher candidates were awed by the stories, the challenges, the joy and the effort that families expend trying to gain acceptance for their child from educators and community members. Teacher candidates also learned details of areas of exceptionality and ongoing dynamics between families, schools and medical providers.

From this point forward, teams proceeded with course readings, activities and reflections related to co-teaching pedagogy. Teams also began to define and explore a topic pertinent to their partner family and inclusive settings. Over the course of the semester, teams communicated with the parent(s) of their matched family. Team members and parents mutually agreed on a beneficial research project to present as the culminating course activity. These culminating projects covered a wide range of topics that added to candidate learning and benefited the partner family. Some examples of family project topics are listed in Table 2.

Table 2Examples of Family Collaboration Project Topics

1. How to start a support group for children with anxiety and stress issues2. Building employability skills through interviewing techniques and computer assisted

instruction3. Transitioning to adulthood: Types of independent living facilities in the community4. Inclusive community dance classes and recreational opportunities5. Understanding motivation and motivational strategies for children with learning

differences6. Searching out high interest – low level reading materials for adolescent boys7. Developing social stories for children with autism at the intermediate level8. Coping with divorce in families of children with disabilities9. Hippotherapy and its use as therapeutic tool for children on the autism spectrum10. Self –advocacy and introduction techniques for children transitioning to middle school11. Understanding the manifestations of bipolar disorder in young children12. Employability and opportunities for young adults with communication challenges

The topics in Table 2 and other topics over the course of past semesters exposed classes to areas of information that might not otherwise be explored before student-teaching. Additionally, groups tailored areas of exploration to their selected family’s child or young adult. This meant that groups explored topics for children in age ranges other than the candidates’ specific area of study: childhood majors learned about adolescent issues and adolescent majors learned about elementary concerns and issues. Culminating activities were designed to benefit the partnering families and specifically benefit the entire class of candidates at a critical time prior to student-teaching. Figure 2 depicts the progression of activities related to the family project.

When teams invited each family back to class for the culminating presentation, they presented each family and the professor with a binder of materials and resources documenting the development and completion of the family project. This served simultaneously as a final assessment and a thoughtfully developed set of resources for the partner family’s future use and reference.

Dispositions. There is a significant body of research identifying characteristics of effective teachers and the role professional dispositions play in predicting good teaching (Whitsett, et al. 2007). Seventeen dispositions became part of course assessment for teacher candidates in the School of Education at St John Fisher College. The dispositions were comprised of practices and behaviors that connect to ACEI Standards and CEC standards. In Collaboration for Inclusion, team activities, individual contributions and presentations were assessed with the dispositions listed in Table 3.

Table 3School of Education Professional Dispositions

1. Ability to accept constructive criticism graciously2. Professional appearance and grooming3. Persistence4. Enthusiasm5. Compassion6. Organization7. Open-mindedness8. Responsibility

Figure 2. Class Section Progress of Family Collaboration. Figure 2 shows the sequence of activities within the course, from the point at the beginning of the course when the four candidate teams are selected to the family research project and presentation.

9. Trustworthiness10. Self-reliance and self-efficacy11. Respect for others12. Self-reflection13. Resourcefulness14. Punctuality and Attendance15. Diversity16. Teamwork/collaboration and interpersonal relations17. Integrity

Summary of Activities and Assignments of the Course In Snow-Gerono’s study of veteran teachers (2009), she found that what veteran teachers

valued most in initial preparation was character, structure and multiple forms of collaboration. In the School of Education, the strands that guided activities and assignments for Collaboration for Inclusion were designed to provide such initial preparation. Teacher candidates practiced multiple forms of collaboration in their teams and they learned to examine their values and dispositions in a structure that provided authentic experiences and meaningful work.

Additionally, although Osher and Osher (2002) found that “it is still uncommon for families to have a voice in actually making decisions about which recommendations to implement or reject and how system reform should be done”(p. 59), teacher preparation programs can develop partnerships that include families to help increase their involvement in school-related decisions.

Evaluation of the CourseInformal evaluation of the course existed in previous semesters beginning in 2006.

However, during the 2009-2010 school year, two of the course’s professors sought and received Institutional Review Board approval from the college to formally evaluate and publish data about course outcomes.

Several assessments were given to indicate the level of student growth and performance in Collaboration for Inclusion and the assessments matched the components of the course. For teamwork, candidates were assessed on projects and activities based upon a rubric for professional dispositions and demonstration of effectiveness in collaborating with team members. At the end of the course, teams met with their professor to discuss areas of a team inventory instrument. This was an opportunity to share their growth and their challenges as team members (Phillips & Elledge, 1989).

There were several co-teaching measures in the course. One of those measures was the presentation and corresponding lesson plan required when teams presented to their fellow candidates on parent involvement strategies from Davis and Yang (2005). Teams also received feedback from their classmates, consulted with their professor to review the co-teaching presentation rubric and discussed aspects of the assignment. After acquiring class content on, and demonstrating co-teaching models (Friend & Cook, 2010), team members paired up with a fellow candidate in the field to deliver a co-taught lesson in an elementary or secondary class at a professional development site sponsored by the college. The lesson plan, along with corresponding reflections and samples of student work, was submitted as another measure for the co-teaching component.

The Family Collaboration Project was assessed throughout the semester. There was a formal project rubric that was provided to teacher candidates at the beginning of the course. Parents provided feedback to their matched team as the project develops. Professors received team meeting agendas and copies of correspondence between team members and families. For the culmination, teams presented their findings to the class and to the partner family. Teams provided materials and an evaluation form to the class and to the family members who attended. Additionally, teams provided their family and the professor with a family project binder that included: a) cover page; b) team mission statement and ground rules; c) introductory letter to parents; d) team meeting agendas and minutes; d) team emails and correspondence to each other and to families; e) detailed presentation lesson plan following specific guidelines; f) materials, handouts and resources provided to parents, fellow candidates; g) bibliography. Parents provided written feedback to the team and the professor on the project; and the professor met with each team at the course’s end to debrief, receive candidates’ written reflections and discuss the application of course content to student teaching and future teaching positions.

Professional dispositions were assessed throughout the course. The Advocacy Center coordinator conducted focus groups with each team at the end of the semester. Candidates also completed a pre and post self assessment containing five statements related to parent/candidate collaboration. For each statement there was a corresponding response of perceived proficiency. Level 1 indicated proficiency was limited, Level 2 indicated proficiency was adequate, Level 3 indicated proficiency was good and Level 4 indicated proficiency was excellent. Teacher candidate responses from Spring 2010 are noted in Figure 3. Figure 3 aggregates the results of the two course sections from the Spring 2010 with 31 teacher candidate respondents. Figure 3 shows that, in all five areas of teacher/parent collaboration, teacher candidates’ perceptions of their proficiency increased from the beginning to the end of the course. Candidates’ perceptions increased by .96 in ability to communicate; .99 in comfort level with parent interactions; and .9 in appreciation for the parents’ perspective. Teacher candidates’ perceptions of proficiency increased by 1.14 levels in the area of working with parents as partners and 1.78 levels in knowing strategies to effectively involved parents.

Candidates’ reflective writings during the semester revealed additional information on growth in skills and authentic collaborative experiences. On teamwork, one candidate wrote:

My biggest challenge was working with others in a group. I tend to want to do all of the work myself, and do not realize that dividing the work can be a good contributor to having good ideas on a certain topic. Collaboration is important and can help to make sure that there is full participation within the group and that all ideas are able to be shared. To work through the challenges that I faced, I had to have trust in my peers and rely on them to complete their parts of the project. It helped me to realize that we all are working for a common goal, and that we can work together to create success.

Teamwork was an area of growth for candidates. One of their readings is The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (Covey, 2004). Teacher candidates entered the course with previous practice on individual activities, papers and projects. They left with a much better understanding of how to work productively in a group, meet specific expectations and learn to share success and responsibility.

It is essential to understand the models of co-teaching in an era where more collaborative models are in place in schools and where education in the least restrictive environment is part of the federal and state mandate for children with special needs (Friend & Cook, 2010). Another candidate expressed her understanding in her final reflective writing:

This semester I learned great new co-teaching strategies form the book, Purposeful Co-teaching. One method I like is called Team Teaching. It is when “Both teachers are responsible for planning and they share the instruction of all students.  Teachers may role-play, debate, simulate and model.  Team teaching requires that the co-teachers are able to mesh their teaching styles.  It is an approach that few co-teachers may ever be able to implement.  Yet many experienced co-teachers report that this is the most rewarding type of co-teaching (Friend & Cook 2010).” I have experienced it first hand in my field work and I love it. I hope one day I can have another teacher in the room with me so we can teach together.Candidate comments indicated that they learned directly from families in the

Collaboration course. Children and parents from the partner families shared explicitly how inclusive education has or has not been accessible. They shared what obstacles have been encountered and what joys have been experienced in school and the community. A teacher candidate in spring 2010 summed it up:

As a collaborator with parents and families, I believe I have grown and learned the most this semester. Especially with students with disabilities, no one knows that child better than the parent; therefore it is important for the teacher to collaborate with that parent in order to provide the best possible education for that student in the least restrictive environment. It is also important to understand that parents can be useful as organization members, service developers, teachers, recipients of professional decisions, and as political advocates; therefore it is extremely important to use the parents and take advantage of any advice they are willing to provide. (Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, & Soodak, 2006)Finally, teacher candidates became aware that professional dispositions are a part of

teaching. Being a responsive, organized, empathetic educator is as much a part of success in the classroom as knowing the content and the latest research. Respecting families, building trust and engaging in positive communication are important aspects of the teaching profession (Blue-Banning, 2004). After experiencing a course like Collaboration for Inclusion, teacher candidates explored these areas and practiced their skills with willing families from the community. A teacher candidate reported in her final reflection,

All in all, I have experienced many inter-personal and intra-personal challenges this semester, but I was able to use these challenges as a learning experience and grow from them. Furthermore, I now feel that I am more prepared to work with both co-workers and parents in the future.

Parent Input and RecommendationsIn partnership with The Advocacy Center, focus groups were held with eight of the

parents who participated in the two course sections during the Spring 2010 semester. All of the focus group participants were mothers, even though one father did participate this semester. Seven were Caucasian and one was African American. The children’s areas of need varied and ranged from autism to learning disabilities. Children’s ages ranged from primary age to young adulthood. There was also variation in socioeconomics, school programs and services provided.

In the focus groups, parents expressed general satisfaction with their contributions and experiences in the course. “You can share realistic experiences with others and make them want to talk to parents instead of being afraid,” said one mother. All of the parents stated that they felt as if they were positively influencing future teachers through sharing of family experiences and collaborating with candidates on team research projects. Another mother said, “You get to see how teachers have been educated, that’s really important to hear their perspective….We’ll talk about the anxiety that parents have communicating with teachers and vice versa. It kind of reframes thing in my mind.” Throughout the semesters, it has been very beneficial to listen first hand to an array of parents and reassess preconceived ideas about parent/teacher collaboration.

Although evaluation was more formal for the Spring 2010 semester, parent participants provided recommendations for improving course delivery in past semesters, as well. Parents provided comments on teacher candidate projects and course activities related to parent partnerships. They also participated in debriefing sessions with the professors and The Advocacy Center coordinator twice each year. The comments and debriefings helped to adjust course content and process based on parent recommendations.

Summary

Teacher preparation is currently being examined to improve outcomes and develop experiences for teacher candidates that are effective and authentic in the long term. With that said, there is still a gap between theory and practice, particularly in the area of collaboration and inclusive educational setting (Schneider, 2007). Furthermore, insufficient school resources are devoted to promoting effective collaboration between general education teachers, special education teachers and parents (Stichter & Caldicott, 1999).

Teacher preparation programs have an opportunity and obligation to initiate authentic experiences for candidates to better equip them for success in a variety of school settings. At colleges and universities preparing teachers today, it may be beneficial to consider partnerships with community organizations and school districts to include other voices and perspectives in the delivery of curriculum. Teacher candidates, who are given opportunities to develop relationships with parents of children with disabilities during preservice, benefit from hearing directly about family experiences in relation to children’s special needs. Moreover, teacher candidates who develop skills and practice collaborating with parents and other professionals are more confident and better prepared for student teaching and future employment.

There are direct and immediate benefits when teacher candidates are offered courses such as Collaboration for Inclusion. Parents become resources for teacher candidates and college professors. The opportunities for partnerships are revealed, and mutual empathy appears to develop and blossom. This type of collaborative curriculum should be considered as teacher preparation programs are revised and designed with more authentic and long term outcomes in mind. As the course continues, the authors will add to existing data on candidate and family perceptions and analyze focus group results. The authors will also expand the research on parent collaboration to include graduates of the program who are now in teaching positions.

ReferencesBarry, D. (1991). Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributive leadership. Organizational

Dynamics, 20, 31-47. Blasi M. W. (2002). An asset model: Preparing preservice teachers to work with children

and families of “promise.” Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17(1),106-121.

Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, H. C., Nelson, L. L., & Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines forcollaboration. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 167-184.

Cibulka, J.. (2009, October). Improving Relevance, Evidence, and Performance in Teacher Preparation. The Education Digest, 75(2), 44-49. 

Clift, R. T. (2009). Structures, curriculum, and teacher education. Curriculum and TeachingDialogue, 11(1 & 2), 73-84.

Correa, V., Jones, H., Thomas, C. C., & Morsink, C.V. ( 2004). Interactive teaming: Enhancing Programs for students with special needs. Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall

Covey, S. (2004). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Free Press.Council for Exceptional Children (2010). Professional standards for highly qualified teachers.

Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ProfessionalDevelopment/ProfessionalStandards/Initial_Content_Standards.doc

Davis, C., & Yang, A. (2005). Parents and teachers working together. Turners Falls, MA:Northeast Foundation for Children.

Emery, M. (1996). Mission control. Training and development, 50(7), 51.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals.Boston: Pearson.

Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally diverse and linguistically diverse families:Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 372-388.

Hemmeter, M. L., Joseph, G.E., Smith, B .J., & Sandall, S. (2001). DEC recommended practicesfor program assessment: Improving practices for young children with disabilities andtheir families. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Hunt, P., Hirose-Hatae, A., Doering, K., Karasoff, P., & Goetz, L. (2000). Community is what I think everyone is talking about. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 305-317.

Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative student teaching experience for preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education,30(3), 155-165.

Kampwirth, T. J. (2005). Collaborative consultation in the schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kohler-Evans, P. A. (2006). Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front of the kids. Education, 127(2), 260-264.

Lambie, R. (2007). Family systems within educational and community contexts: Understanding children who are at risk or have special needs. Denver:

Love Publishing Co.McKenzie, R.G. (2009). A national survey of preservice preparation for collaboration.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(4), 379-393.Osher, T. W., & Osher, D.M. (2002). The paradigm shift to true collaboration with families.

Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1), 47-60. Peck, C. A., Staub, D., Gallucci, C., & Schwartz, B. (2004). Parent perception of the

impacts of inclusion on their nondisabled child. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(2), 135-143.

Phillips, S. L. & Elledge, R .L. (1989). The team-building source book. San Diego, Ca: University Associates.

Schneider, F. J. (2007). Teaching collaboration to education majors. The Community College Enterprise, 13(2), 7-25.

Schon, D. A. (1995). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Surry,U.K.: Ashgate Publishing.

Scruggs, R. E., Mastropieri, M.A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children,

73(4), 392-416. Smiley, A. D. (2009). Our experience: The voices of instructors teaching a course on

families. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 22(4), 36-44.Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2009). Voices less silenced: What do veteran teachers value in school-

university partnerships and initial teacher preparation? The Teacher Educator, 44(4), 248-267.

Stang, K. K., & Lyons, B. M. ( 2008). Effects of modeling collaborative teaching for preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31(3), 182-194.

Stichter, J. P., & Caldicott, J. M. (1999). Families, school collaboration, and shared visionin the context of IDEA. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(4), 252-255.

Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Erwin, E., & Soodak, L. (2006). Families, professionals, and

exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Villa, R.A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. (2004). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for facilitating student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4),395-407. Welch, M., & Brownell, K. (2002). Are professionals ready for educational partnerships? Theevaluation of a technology-enhanced course to prepare educators for collaboration.Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 133-144.Whitsett, G., Roberson, T., Julian, K., & Betham, L. (2007). First year teachers’ reported levels offunctioning on selected professional dispositions. Education, 128, 95-101.

Author BiographiesDr. Marie Cianca is Assistant Professor in the Executive Leadership Program of the Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. School of Education at St. John Fisher College in Rochester, NY. She has served in several administrative and teaching positions and also worked as an associate in the New York State Education Department. Email: mcianca@sjfc.edu

Dr. Michael Wischnowski is Associate Professor in the Executive Leadership Program of the Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. School of Education at St. John Fisher College in Rochester, NY.  He has a Ph.D. in special education from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Email: mwischnowski@sjfc.edu

Dr. Susan Hildenbrand is Assistant Professor in the Inclusive Education Department of the Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. School of Education at St. John Fisher College in Rochester, NY.  Her research interests include co-teaching in the inclusive classroom. Email: shildenbrand@sjfc.edu

Mr. Daniel Kelly is an instructor in the Inclusive Education Department of the Ralph C. Wilson Jr. School of Education at St. John Fisher College in Rochester, NY. He has nine years of public school teaching experience in special education and inclusive education. Mr. Kelly has worked as an instructor in higher education for 11 years. Email: dkelly@sjfc.edu

START new page

Featured Articles on Collaboration

Action Research Empowering Teacher Development: Connecting Teacher Reflection, Teaching Effectiveness, and Program Change

Cynthia J. BentonSusan K. StrattonKaren StearnsState University of New York at Cortland

AbstractA decade of graduate program change was examined using a mixed method approach,

specifically focused on the impact of action research on individual teacher-scholars and programmatic development. Teacher graduates and faculty from a comprehensive college responded to surveys, focus groups, and interviews, indicating anticipated and documented effects of action research on teachers’ professional development, application to classroom instruction, and collaborative and reflective practice. Findings indicate positive outcomes for engaging in action research, a sense of empowerment from completing Master’s projects, and increased professionalism as a result of the research process in collaboration with public school mentors. Implications for teacher education program development and P-12 classroom instruction are discussed, especially the need for writing instruction at the graduate level and the impact of teacher empowerment through professional research.

***Educational practices provide the data, the subject matter, which forms the problems of inquiry. It seems to me that the contributions that might come from classroom teachers are a comparatively neglected field…an almost unworked mine. (Dewey, 1929, p. 9)

While Dewey pointed to the “unworked mine” of teacher practice as subject for self-study as early as 1929, it is only since the middle of the last century, and particularly in the last 15 years, that practitioner research has received growing attention from stakeholders in the education process. Just over 50 years ago, Corey (1953) defined action research as a process by which teachers would study their practices to solve personal practical problems. In the early 1990s, Bogdan and Biklen (2003), in their definitive textbook on qualitative research, affirmed their support for systematic collection of information designed to bring about social and educational change. Increased examination of action research projects in recent years has begun to yield illuminating data regarding teacher and program development as a result of qualitative research methods.

A survey of American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) members concluded almost half of the teacher education programs require candidates to participate in action research (Henderson, Hunt, & Wester, 1999). Action research has been cited

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 5, Number 1 Fall/Winter 2010 XX

46

Running head from here to end of article should be Benton, Stratton, and Stearnsas a way of meeting the “investigative needs of the educational community” and “encourag[ing] teachers to think in more encompassing ways” (Oja & Smulyan, 1989, p. 1). National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards for teacher education programs have also signaled a shift from an emphasis on the processes of teaching to the outcomes of teaching. Teacher education programs are required to demonstrate a correlation between their candidates’ work in preschool through 12th grade (P-12) classrooms and children’s achievements. Changes in both accreditation requirements and graduate programs’ assessments have influenced teacher preparation programs’ concerns to help teacher candidates learn from the collection and analysis of data to improve student learning outcomes (Green & Brown, 2006). Such concerns also point to the need to bring collaborative work into the school and classroom to ensure educators are concertedly working to improve student outcomes.

Action research provides a systematic and intentional cycle of constructing knowledge through observing, reflecting, planning, acting, and evaluating changes to solve problems of practice (Ax, Ponte, & Brouwer, 2008; Glesne, 2006). Specifically, action research projects assume an inquiry stance, in contrast to what Green and Brown (2006) describe as a “caring” or “best practice” approach to constructing projects (p. 46). Additional evidence of the shift to inquiry methods is indicated by increasing calls for knowledge that is actionable, especially knowledge related to organizational and social problems (Beers, 2001; Hendricks, 2009). Extending this definition, action research has been identified as a vehicle to enhance the nature and quality of teacher development, both in teacher education programs and in classroom practice (Benton & Schillo, 2004; Green & Brown, 2006; Mills, 2003), which in turn, underscores the critical growth of reflective practice.

Reflective practice requires a continuous process, emanating from a personal perspective, to consider and systematically debrief critical incidents within the educator’s life experience (Brock, 2004; Papastephanou, 2006; Schon, 1983). Such reflective practice involves teachers thoughtfully considering experiences in applying knowledge to practice while being coached by professionals in the discipline. Sergiovanni (1991) expanded on the precepts of reflective practice for inservice and preservice teachers from an administrator's perspective to emphasize the potential benefits for faculty development in empowering individual teachers to seek their own improvement. Connecting the call for increased teacher empowerment with the design of teacher education programs that include action research projects fits conveniently in the contemporary model for developing reflective practice.

The development of teacher professional voice is another component of the transition from preservice to inservice professionals, albeit an elusive component of that transition. We view the process much the way Elliot, Daily, Fredricks, and Graham (2008) describe as "…an attempt to shift students' perspectives from others' definitions of education to envisioning themselves as new members of a professional community, confident in what they know and can do, and capable of adding knowledge to the field" (p. 57). The complex nature of developing professional voice, as novice teachers step into their new role with varying degrees of support and preparation, is achievable but fraught with complications (Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1994). Studies on the use of writing in general and Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) specifically provide an opportunity to increase, accelerate, and deepen the development of professional voice (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Elliot et al., 2008; Segall & Smart, 2005). Thus, writing is often used as an effective learning tool for guiding candidates to analyze, synthesize, and apply course

47

content as an entry point to the professional community of teachers (Segall & Smart, 2005). This process enables candidates to connect writing and learning by having candidates use writing to organize their ideas and begin to solve real world problems.

Theoretical Framework and PurposeIn the late 1990s, to meet external review requirements and changes in program

standards, education faculty at the State University of New York College at Cortland designed a research project model to replace comprehensive examinations and to respond to literature on teacher empowerment. Faculty who implemented the action research requirement examined in this study were interested in developing a model for the Master’s degree that increased research reading and demonstrated conceptual and stylistic research sophistication focused on improving classroom teaching.

In the years since its inception, research projects evolved from those with emphases on simple literature reviews and historical research, to current goals for culminating program experiences that are field-based, classroom-oriented, action research projects. As faculty re-examined the intentions for action research embedded in a Master’s program, we were interested in what ways the implementation of action research in the graduate program was perceived by faculty and to what degree it affected student learning. Further, we wondered if candidates’ research activities were viewed as meaningful and contributing to candidates' development of their teaching abilities. The importance of collaboratively developing, conducting, and projecting change using research projects was critical for the candidates who worked with mentor teachers.

Because it is both school-based and community-oriented, action research builds capacity among all stakeholders in the educational process and is designed, ultimately, to bring about social change (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Practitioners of action research are actively involved in the cause for which the research is conducted, making them advocates for children in and out of school. The aim of monitoring a Master’s program in which action research has been used was to identify the preservice and inservice teachers' visions for social change and advocacy, and to gauge possible application of transformative practice in collaboration with mentor teachers. In other words, rather than having candidates simply learning to mimic what was happening in the classrooms where field work took place, we hoped to develop in the candidates a sense of self-efficacy toward their teaching practice, and the capacity to critique and examine the practices they saw with an eye to strengthening and improving those practices through their own ideas and actions.

Action researchers have challenged what some have called elitist assumptions embedded in traditional, top-down research hierarchies through the implementation of learner-centered approaches to teaching and learning. For this reason, our program shift to include action research was directed toward either improving personal effectiveness and professional confidence (Auger & Wideman, 2000) or the effectiveness of the teacher’s practice within the setting (Auger & Wideman, 2000; Brown & Macantangay, 2002; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1994). It is possible for action research to challenge these suppositions that may underlie the dominant narratives, although more likely in the hands of a skillful and thoughtful teacher than a novice teacher. The novice, however, is simultaneously learning or being exposed to dominant narratives that have shaped current practice, thus making it especially challenging. However, at its most ambitious, action research has the power to transform, emancipate, and empower teachers who have been socialized to adapt to existing meaning structures (Mezirow, 2000; Schon, 1983; Yorks, 2005). It also encourages the practitioner-researcher to dissect the taken-for-granted world of the

48

classroom (Adler, 2003) and to examine and perhaps fundamentally alter conceptions of knowledge, power, and the relationship of research to teaching (Adler, 2003; Schon, 1983). Particularly for candidates in this study, working with in-service teachers, the collaboration necessary to complete the projects provided another avenue toward change for both participants.

The focus on transforming practice to promote social justice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Noffke & Stevenson, 1995) may be least transparent to preservice teacher action researchers who conduct their research as a requirement of their Master’s degree programs. Many novice teachers engaged in completing a required Master’s degree are challenged to connect social advocacy to the pragmatic acts of completing degree requirements. Thus, although candidates working with action research may vaguely understand its potential for application as collaborative and emancipatory, concerns of personal development are more immediate, and that too is of value (Cain, Holmes, Larrett, & Mattock, 2007).

This study was informed by a decade of inquiry and observation, including review of a number of seminal works reflecting the difficulties of both instructing action research and evaluating its effects on teacher development, and teacher self-reflection and professional empowerment (Adler, 2003; Green & Brown, 2006; Noftke & Stevenson, 1995). We designed the study to gauge the effects, both individual and programmatic, of conducting action research as part of a graduate teacher education program. We wanted to investigate the extent to which Master’s degree candidates exhibited teacher voice in their writing and research interpretations, the extent to which they apply action research concepts in their teaching lives, and the program effects as reported by both faculty and program graduates. We considered the significant changes projected between 1997, when development of the requirements for action research was initiated, and the current practice of requiring action research for every Master’s candidate. Our study was aimed at substantiating the 1997 predictions that such research requirements might transform practice for teacher graduates trained in action research.

Research QuestionsThe study investigated four central questions:

In what ways are Master’s degree candidates empowered as teacher researchers to perform and apply understandings from action research in the classroom?

To what degree does the completion of a Master’s Research Project enhance graduate candidates' development of professional voice (the ability to situate oneself in and articulate the relevance of research to one's own practice)? 

What do faculty members perceive as the value, purpose, and level of effectiveness of action research projects in the Master’s program?  

To what degree do data support continued programmatic investment in an action research model for graduate teacher education and for collaboration with inservice teachers?

MethodologyThe study was conducted at the State University of New York College at Cortland. The

institution has a total undergraduate and graduate enrollment of approximately 7,200 students, with approximately 60% of students enrolled in teacher education programs. Approximately 300 certified teachers graduate with Master’s degrees college-wide each year, and 30 to 50 students annually complete a Master’s project in childhood or literacy education. These candidates almost exclusively achieve Master’s degrees in pursuit of a state-required advanced teaching certificate. The college has a significant role in providing initial and professional preparation for New York

49

State teaching certification, and is consistently ranked in the top 10 largest teacher education programs in the nation.

ParticipantsThe graduates were members of two different sub-populations, the Master’s of Science in

Teaching (MST) and the Master’s of Science in Education (MSEd). The groups had identical requirements and standards for the project, although the MST cohorts typically had less time in the program (17 months) and coursework with continuous emphasis on action research tenets. The MSEd research projects tend to be relegated to one semester of research methods, followed immediately or as long as several years later, by a semester-long project course in which action research is accomplished. The MST cohorts seek initial certification and generally prepare their projects during practicum and student teaching. The MSEd candidates were generally employed, with 65% either teaching or substitute teaching. The remainder held various jobs outside of teaching.

A total of 72 responses (24% of graduates surveyed) were received from the online survey. Sixteen graduates (five percent) responded to an invitation to provide additional information, and nine (three percent) participated in a Master’s project focus group. Twenty faculty members participated in an online survey, and six participated in the faculty focus group.

Data SourcesFive primary data sources were employed: document analysis of 345 Master’s

candidates’ projects; surveys of 298 alumni graduates from two elementary programs, a Master’s of Science in Teaching (initial certificate) and a Master’s of Education (professional certificate) requesting expanded interviews; a survey of all faculty members teaching in the graduate programs; focus groups and expanded interviews of graduate volunteers (from survey returns); and individual faculty interviews with those who have instructed the Master’s project.

Procedure A mixed method research approach was used (Mills, 2003; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), including document analysis and qualitative and thematic analyses of focus group data and survey responses. A Master’s Project Quality Rubric (Appendix A) was developed and used to evaluate and classify 345 projects for quality in three categories (target, acceptable, unacceptable): for expression of voice (personal interpretation of the study's findings, relevance to their classroom, and growth as a teacher); for significance of findings; and for contribution to the field. Although portions of the rubric are part of the assignment expectations for project coursework such as American Psychological Association (APA) style, literature review, and methodology components, this rubric was specifically developed by the researchers to provide an analysis of the elements in the rubric as they changed over time. Candidates did not see the rubric as a format for the project; it was not used as a guide because it was developed after most of the projects had been completed.

A seven-item, electronic Program Graduate Survey (Appendix B) was distributed to graduates of the programs since 1998 for whom Master’s projects and current contact information were on file (n = 345). The survey specifically focused on two critical questions: What difference has being a teacher-researcher made in your teaching? What effect, if any, did doing an action research project on a problem of practice have on your teaching? The survey was distributed via email addresses, and return was requested within one week. Volunteers from

50

respondents to the electronic survey were invited to participate in a focus group to discuss questions in more depth. Sixteen graduates volunteered to participate in additional interviews.

Twenty faculty members were surveyed, and the six who served as instructors for Master’s projects participated in interviews to discuss questions related to the purpose, delivery, and effectiveness of action research in the graduate program and in their teaching lives. The Faculty Writing Survey (Appendix C) was distributed electronically and consisted of eight questions regarding the importance of writing and research in their own and program graduate coursework. The six faculty members responsible for direct instruction of the Master’s projects were interviewed informally and asked questions for in-depth analysis and reflection on their individual survey responses. Following interviews and analysis of the responses, faculty participated in a member-checking procedure to underscore and clarify the preliminary outcomes. For example, if comments were ambiguous, we checked with the faculty member for clarification. We shared passages summarizing their comments so as not to misconstrue ideas.

Analysis of DataEach author participated in the analysis of all data, reaching consensus on interpretation

of outcomes, summaries, and conclusions. All completed Master’s projects were analyzed using the rubric; comparisons of quality were made based on each category score. Because of the similarity of APA style and the quality of writing for the literature review and the methodology sections, those categories were collapsed into a single category called writing style. Projects were grouped by year completed (calendar year, including summer sessions). Candidate and faculty surveys and focus group discussions were transcribed and analyzed to identify themes. In addition, program cohorts were identified to allow for comparative analyses of different program and teacher graduate characteristics (e.g., Master’s of Education cohorts and Master’s of Science in Teaching cohorts). Constant comparative methods were applied, and results from each of the data sources were compared and included in the results and conclusions (Bogden & Biklen, 2003).

Findings and DiscussionFindings from the various data sources indicate several themes and implications

regarding teachers as researchers (project quality, critical thinking, professional writing, teacher voice, and reflective practice), and the efficacy of the graduate program in providing an experience that prepares teachers to apply inquiry methods and research in the classroom.

Overview and Discussion of Quantitative DataData described in Figure 1 were taken from the seven item responses to all 72 surveys

returned. The left side of this table indicates the total number of 72 responses as they were broken down into affirmative or negative responses on either end of the Likert scale. Data were collapsed in this way because of the strong tendency to be positive or negative to most questions with relatively few (eight total) midrange responses. The decision to display data in this way was made since it was impossible to assess the reasons for the difference between strongly agree and disagree and simply agree and disagree. Therefore, the four outside categories were combined into two: disagreement (complete disagreement and some disagreement) and agreement (some agreement and full agreement).

Figure 1. Responses from Program Graduate Survey

51

Data from the Program Graduate Survey (Appendix B; n = 72) was a mixture of anticipated and unanticipated information. Predictably, candidates reported the project to be useful in understanding a wide variety of research (high scores on Figure 1, Question 1). Likewise, although responses were more positive than negative about understanding how teachers solve problems in the classroom, they were only moderately different from each other (see Figure 1, Question 2).

Comparing the process of problem solving in the research project to candidates' observation of classroom teachers' behaviors yielded markedly more negative than positive responses (see Figure 1, Question 3). Practicing teachers' problem solving was not seen as equivalent to the action research process. This information was significant to us for two reasons. First, it attuned us to the sorts of practices encountered by our candidates in the classrooms they observed. That insight caused us to rethink placements and the criteria by which we selected teachers. Selecting teachers with some understanding of action research and how to conduct it increased support for our candidates. Second, it caused us to understand more clearly the importance of the time constraints for both practicing teachers and preservice teachers in implementing systematic, realistic research in classroom settings. The barriers to collaboration toward research are significant, and thus helping candidates early to modify the scope and applicability of their projects is needed. When candidates consider the scope of projects and their application as a tool for inquiry into classroom pedagogy and instructional problem-solving, their expectations are uniformly higher than is realistic. Collaboration with the mentor teacher facilitates realistic design.

Projecting the use of techniques and ideas from the Master's project in current teaching practices (Figure 1, Question 4) is positively skewed, in that many program graduates are not currently teaching (approximate 65% are currently employed as teachers or substitute teachers). Because of the electronic format of the survey, we were unable to separate out individual responses as employed or unemployed in a teaching position. However, responses are still more positive (36) than negative (17) indicating some graduates who are applying the findings from their projects or are in a supportive environment where they can systematically examine classroom problems.

Questions 5, 6 and 7 affirm the value of the program's project requirement. Question 5 states: "I believe that completing the Master’s project has provided me with a valuable learning

52

experience that helped me develop as a professional teacher." Responses were very positive, (50 affirmative) second only to question 1 (51 affirmative). From comments and follow up interviews, graduates expressed that conducting action research professionalized their experience and helped them to become better prepared teachers.

Candidates generally agreed (45 affirmative) that doing the Master's project influenced the ways they prepared to teach (see Figure 1, Question 6). However, the final question showed a dramatic leveling of responses (31 affirmative and 28 negative) to the statement, "I would be interested in trying another research project in the future." There are several possible reasons for this change of direction. Graduate candidates are generally working either as teachers or other jobs, and few of the candidates are able to pursue graduate work full-time. They may perceive action research as onerous, and do not desire to add reading and writing tasks to their professional life demands. Additionally, an unsupportive school climate may influence their decision not to participate, or adjusting to new professional responsibilities may deter teacher enthusiasm about continued research activity.

Qualitative ThemesAnalyzing the open-ended candidate responses from survey responses, interviews, and

focus groups yielded qualitative data that was relatively congruent but somewhat different from the quantitative responses. Sixteen graduates (five percent) responded to an invitation to provide additional information, and nine (three percent) participated in a Master’s project focus group. In addition, comments were written on about 20% (n = 14) of the Likert scale survey. Those comments were considered in developing these themes. Further individuals who identified themselves from a mailing sent out to all recent graduates were either interviewed by e-mail or by telephone, whichever method they preferred. From tape recorded and transcribed interviews or written e-mail responses from these sources, four general themes emerged. The themes were identified as project quality; critical thinking, reading, and professional writing; teacher voice; and reflective practice.

Quality: Value of Doing the Master's Project. The majority of the respondents indicated the Master’s project was a valuable marker in their professional development. A few did not, identifying it as, “just busy work.” For those who responded with written comments, the rigor and process of defining a focus, investigating a classroom problem, and producing the final report, led to an increased level of confidence and perceived relevance of research in their professional lives. The act of producing research empowered them to read, understand and appreciate the research process and product in the educational setting. Respondents indicated several ways they valued the experience. (All names used are pseudonyms). This response characterizes the idea of several that were similar: "completing my Master's project was very beneficial in many ways--academically, professionally, and personally…[the project] helped to boost my confidence level in tackling and completing rigorous academic projects" (Rhonda, third-grade teacher, interview, 6/24/08).

When asked in what ways the research project affected the teachers' professional development, a variety of responses indicated broader benefits than just the implementation of research. As emerged from five e-mail interviews and focus group discussions, graduates indicated increases in life skills, critical thinking, and personal development, in addition to research-based knowledge. Andrea (first-grade teacher, interview, 6/22/08) stated, "[The research project] provided insight…it reinforced the need to stay organized, work, hard, and stay determined…I also learned that for whatever topic/subject I wanted to teach there are resources

53

and people to assist me." One of the critical resources identified by our analyses is the classroom teacher, whose collaboration may increase the perceived benefits and possibilities for application of the action research outcomes.

Quality: Improvement of projects. Generally, the quality of projects and the development of voice in candidate writing improved over time. Figure 2 reflects overall scores on the rubric indicating improvement in the quality of projects over time. As used in the rubric in Appendix A and figures reflecting data from the rubric, the designations of target for projects fully meeting all desired criteria, acceptable for projects minimally meeting all desired criteria and unacceptable for projects not meeting criteria were used. These designations are typically used by accreditation organizations, and we have found them useful for analyzing candidate work.

In Figure 2, vertical bars represent the percent of candidates at target, acceptable, or not acceptable levels, and the horizontal axis is the number of projects analyzed in that year. Critical problems identified by faculty member surveys and in the project analyses were preservice teachers’ general lack of professional writing experience, lack of ability to conceptualize the role of research in teaching and learning, insecurity about access to sources of knowledge and skepticism about participating in creating knowledge for the profession. Project analyses indicate a gradual improvement in candidate ability to read and conduct research, and general improvement in professional style.

Figure 2. Longitudinal Comparison, Overall Quality of Projects—Line Graph Indicates Total Number of Projects Per Year

54

As project quality improved, so did attitudes about the relevance of research. The dramatic shift from predominantly unacceptable to predominantly acceptable and target projects after 2003 reflects several institutional and instructional events. A School of Education was created, giving greater autonomy and responsibility to departments for regulation of the research requirement. The reassignment of faculty members' load facilitated specialization and regularization of the process and requirements for the research courses. There was a relatively small sample of projects before 2003, which may have skewed the data, but there was also a lack of common requirements and well-monitored outcomes. The criteria for completion of the project were re-focused from a thesis-like document to a more hands-on action research focus, with the collaboration of cooperating teachers a feature of the new program requirement. Finally, candidates began to anticipate the research project as part of their professional program, specialized in concentration strands with the support of faculty, and then worked in tandem with cooperating teachers to begin their research design.

Critical Thinking, Reading, and Professional Writing. The Original Proposal To Require A Master’s project did not include the intention to provide direct instruction in the writing process beyond stylistic requirements, despite general faculty agreement that graduate candidates lacked adequate professional writing abilities. Results from both candidate surveys and faculty focus group data indicate a need for greater emphasis on developing professional writing skills and establishing program goals specifically focused on writing. As researchers, we feel that writing skills are closely tied to the ability to read and critically interpret current literature. Both areas were indicated as a necessary goal to improve the program; greater gains in reading research than in professional writing were recorded during the 10-year period (Figure 3).

55

One notable finding from graduate teachers’ data was a reported better understanding of knowledge sources for the profession, and an increased ability to read and interpret research findings. Graduates generally expressed a better facility with reading journals and other professional writing, and an increase in their desire to do so. Several responses reflect a new, critical perspective on action research: "…I did learn better professional writing, and I think I am a lot better at understanding how to get the gist of reading articles and journals for what they have to say about my job" (Tammy, substitute teacher, interview, 6/18/08). The following was added by Jamie, a reflection of the empowering effect of reading and interpreting research, "What I like about [doing action research] was feeling like you could affect something--that you could get at a problem. It was actually fun to think about solving a problem in the classroom systematically and showing other teachers how it's done" (Jamie, fourth-grade teacher, interview, 6/22/08).

Teacher Voice. Evidence of teacher voice--those projects that culminated in a definite aha! moment, in which the graduate candidate grasps and interprets well the outcomes of research--were infrequent, perhaps only 10 to 15% of individual cases. Candidates in these cases appeared to take ownership of their work in a serious way. They communicated their insights with confidence and supporting evidence, and acquired a markedly more professional writing tone. While there was an increase in this project characteristic over time, noticeably in the last three academic years, the responses of teachers in focus groups indicate the applications they find for the classroom are limited (Figure 4). Nonetheless, teachers increasingly reported personal and professional relevance for action research: "I started out thinking it would never amount to anything; at first I couldn't believe studying my own students would be something that could make a study. But finding out what I did make sense…I am definitely a teacher-

56

researcher" (Melissa, first-grade teacher, interview, 6/22/08).

Another important consideration of the emphasis on action research is the applicability or potential for changing the community or affecting the school setting—not just the individual classroom. This consideration is critically dependent on the ability to collaborate and share in the purpose, design and outcomes with colleagues, in this case, a mentor teacher. Interviews and focus group comments about what teachers see throughout the school and its relevance to applied action research are revealing. Most just don't envision research happening. One focus group member's comment captures it well: "I wish I had figured out how to publish this…I just don't have a clue what the next step is…at first it made me think a lot. But of course, when they're breathing down your neck you tend to not think too creatively" (Maria, fourth-grade teacher, interview, 6/26/08). Whether research is published formally, or in the liberal sense of circulating information to inform teacher practices, may depend largely on the ability to collaborate with colleagues and administrators in the use of research outcomes.

Purpose of Action Research: Toward Reflective Practice. One of the goals of learning the research process and producing independent action research projects is to encourage and expand the possibilities for reflective practice. When asked if the research process affected the way teachers work or the expectations they have of other’s teaching, respondents were able to provide examples that indicate some development of reflective thinking in the classroom and about education in general (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Longitudinal Comparison, Relevance of Findings—Line Graph Indicates Total Number of Projects Per Year

57

Those who responded positively expressed the following: "I understand what's wrong with the educational system much better. We just aren't prepared to think about what we're doing with students; we are just supposed to teach to improve scores. What research does is make you step back and understand both the "bigger picture" and the "micro-picture"--how schools work and how kids work" (Paul, fifth-grade teacher, interview, 6/16/08).

The following response indicates a maturing perspective on the impact of studying and understanding research and its application to the classroom: "It was about my thinking through and finding the information…it was about being systematic…it was about eliminating all the extraneous stuff and concentrating on where the problem came from and how you can monitor and make it better" (Erin, substitute teacher, interview, 6/16/08).

Some participants responded negatively, that the research project probably had not affected their teaching or perspective on teaching. Martina represented their comments when she said, "It has had no effect on the way I teach. There is limited time as a classroom teacher to complete ‘required tasks’ of the school. There is no time allotted to conduct a research study" (Martina, third-grade teacher, interview, 6/12/08). 

While a number of projects were identified as publishable by faculty, very few graduates followed through to publish their work. Some respondents clearly described generating information in their projects that was applicable to their teaching, but few were able or willing to extrapolate the value of that research to other teaching situations. The heart of action research and its purpose and applicability were summarized by a number of participants, most notably this response: "…when I read something, or I hear someone quoting something, my first reaction is to figure out just what, if anything, they're basing their ideas on" (Allison, kindergarten teacher, interview, 6/12/08).

58

Another aspect revealed in the candidates’ responses was the relative developmental process of teachers’ expertise and perspective on problem-solving in the classroom. As candidates developed a self-to-other focus, they moved from viewing the projects as an exercise to be completed to seeing it as a means to better teaching. The shift in maturity of experienced teachers was evident in the response dichotomy concerning action research and its importance to teacher development.

One unemployed teacher commented: "…The study I did was one that truly interested me, and that made it really important that I get it right. It was exciting to see the results…interpreting this study was clearly something that went beyond mere writing and making an argument. But I'm not sure where it goes from here" (Tina, interview, 6/22/08).A more experienced teacher reflects:"…the concept of a research project is to enhance the curiosity of the teacher and invigorate his or her love of learning…future teachers should be able to research something of interest to them. Many have reached the graduate level without ever looking into a topic that they themselves are interested in and most have certainly never written extensively on anything…they should want to continue with the research on their own" (Georgia, third-grade teacher, interview, 6/14/08). Such contrasting views illustrate the wide range of outcomes evidenced in our study, and in the graduate candidate/teachers’ development and attitudes. 

Faculty Perspectives of Action Research: Program ImprovementInterviews and focus group results provided a faculty perspective on graduate program

and individual teacher development. Project mentor faculty specified benefits of the research project and the accompanying increased attention to the use of research as a source of assistance for teacher development. The benefits they identified emanating from their graduate candidates conducting action research included the opportunity the project gives candidates to try out strategies for improving teaching and maximizing learning outcomes. The areas that emerged from the survey and interviews indicated faculty members value the project and understand its relation to program analysis and success of instruction.

Several instructors cite the emphasis on the research process as critical to candidates’ understanding that there is “no quick fix," in teaching, only a "working towards improvement." Informants agreed that the action research process with its focus on cycles of data collection, analysis, and reflection helps candidates resist a tendency to “want it [the lesson] to be right” rather than to want to consider how it might be improved. Similarly concerned about how candidates’ construct the act of teaching and understand classrooms, another faculty member mentioned the importance of candidates’ observations of pupils “to see what ways they learn best” (Rasha, interview, 5/22/08). She went on to say, "…[candidates in the Master’s program] need to consider all pupils’ learning, not some, not most, not a few, but each pupil. They seem to have some sort of breakthrough with that understanding." Another instructor, a full-time elementary school teacher herself, adds that researchers learning how to "own the problem, solve the problem" is "empowering." She contrasts an inquiry stance with teachers "complaining, or falling back on reactions that are counterproductive to learning" (Lisa, interview, 5/18/08).

In general, the use of the Master’s Project is seen as effective in creating a more professional program. Faculty identify the critical importance of graduate candidates understanding research, but identified two obstacles: (a) the difficulty of sustained research and writing for part-time candidates and (b) the possibility that other alternatives for a culminating experience may be as meaningful (e.g., community action or service). In addition to defining

59

how writing might be improved, faculty members were concerned about the originality and applicability of the candidates' chosen topics, and the relevance of the research to the classroom teacher. Considering the opportunities for, and limitations to, classroom research, it becomes critical that novice researchers have support and collaboration of mentors to fully realize the potential of action research.

Better Professional Writing Instruction. A number of faculty pointed to their candidates' writing as "below expectations" and as one said, "the biggest barrier for some" (Lisa, interview, 5/18/08). Others indicated frustration with still having to "do so much work on mechanics with graduate students" and work with struggling candidates who self-report they have never written "an extended piece of writing before." Faculty view the difficulty candidates have with writing action research analyses as thinking problems and some admit to being "troubled," as one said, that "we have teachers teaching writing who apparently cannot write" (Lisa, interview, 5/18/08).

Why require an action research project and not some other culminating project or program effort? This was a key question that emerged from our research. Faculty indicated the frustration of having too little evidence to make claims about the impact of the action research masters project on future teachers' practice, echoing McTaggart's (1994) concern that action research can become little more than a procedure. One member pointed out that although strong writers "complete the assignment with ease," these same candidates seem "lost for answers" when it comes to responding to "specific questions regarding elementary students" (Jessica, interview, 5/20/08). Other faculty focus on school climate or school cultures as either supportive of such research activities or not. One was optimistic about inquiry projects candidates had undertaken with cooperating teachers and suggested that host teachers should be involved in the action research cycle with candidate interns. Another pointed to recent institutional grants and a professional development school model in the area that supports action research as positive signs.

Some identified a disconnect between teaching and learning in public schools. One faculty member said that "only outcomes are important now, not the process" (Mary, interview, 5/16/08). Our success as a teacher education institution is tied to the ability of teachers to change the culture of the classroom and school. This study established that using action research and applying its tenets seems to be happening marginally in the classroom for some teachers, but seemingly, not at all for the school settings in which they live and work.

Action Research and Relevance to the FieldThe development of critical thinking that comes out of the research and writing process

is, in essence, what changes graduate candidates' minds about their identities as teachers. At the point where critical thinking begins to develop, the greater educational environment (i.e., what is published, the body of research that has come before them), is valued and seen as an added insight into existing issues or problems endemic to school settings. Candidates become aware that the wheel need not be reinvented, that practice should be informed, and that practice is more often than not improved by the application of research findings.

Schon (1987) described the development of the reflective practitioner, wherein one starts out thinking most about their own actions as a teacher instead of what happens to the learners in their classes. Critical transformations may occur through the action research process, which often moves the practitioner from that self-centered perspective into the more appropriate other-centered perspective. The research and writing processes appear to document and concretize that

60

transformation. Support and collaboration with a public school mentor (administrator, teacher, or resource person) may also add to the perceived relevance of the project. If such a transformation occurs and teachers see a cause-and-effect relationship between their research and systematic actions and results with children, this evidence causes them to believe in themselves and feel empowered to make positive changes in their environments. In addition, a school where collaboration occurs may become a rich venue for sustained design and execution of relevant action research (Radford, 2007).

A critical mass of teachers and principals engaged with the idea is necessary to provide impetus, encouragement, and support before wider applications are commonplace. Can school leaders be deliberate, lead by example, and assist faculty to apply for money and write grants? In this study, some graduate candidates identified writing improvement based on critical thinking skills and reflection, self-reported evidence that teacher growth had been aided by action research. Yet, few reported any widespread support or engagement in the process, even in instances in which a principal had remarked on the success of their research.

Implications for EducationAction research, as predicted in the 1980s and 1990s (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993;

Oja & Smulyan, 1989; Schon, 1983), has had an effect on creating high-quality teacher education programs and, to some degree, has affected teachers’ empowerment in their own professional development. In this study, an emphasis on individual, research-based action research projects elevated the program’s academic and professional perspectives. Faculty and candidate data support conclusions that candidates’ writing skills, critical thinking, and teacher voice in writing improved during the decade under study. After using a classroom-based focus for methods courses and research projects, some teachers who graduated from the Master’s program indicated an increased degree of investment in using research.

The study revealed positive learning applications after completing action research, as evidenced in teacher self-reports of improved skills in reading literature and identifying and solving problems of practice. Paralleling the conclusions of Green and Brown (2006), Beers (2001), and Hendricks (2009), action research can be a positive vehicle to enhance teacher development, both through achievement in and meaningfulness of their graduate program and through implementation in their classroom practice. The need to expand efforts to directly teach writing skills along with research methods is a central emphasis for graduate program improvement. Faculty members perceived some value in helping novice teachers understand and conduct research, particularly the improved critical thinking and writing skills necessary to professionals. As in Schon (1987) and Noftke, Scott, and Gibbons (2001), the outcomes of educational research should be the eventual empowering of teachers and creative control over improving the classroom learning environment and positive student achievement. Outcomes of this study provide rather limited evidence of strong teacher empowerment, creative control, and improved learning environment. The study provides no evidence in the category of connection to improved student achievement. The involvement of mentors in design and execution of the study seemingly contributed to the improved quality and perception of the research project.

Indicators from the data results have provided impetus for change in the structure and delivery of the program. Efforts to provide process-writing instruction and assessment in all courses throughout the program are being implemented. As evidenced in the faculty feedback and in the evaluation of the projects themselves, the need for requirements for substantive writing throughout the program, along with sufficient criticism and feedback on writing skills is

61

a critical conclusion of our research project.The action research project empowered teachers to seek and create knowledge about

their classrooms and the students who will benefit from this knowledge. While little direct evidence was found to establish benefits for P-12 students as projected by Gibbons and colleagues (1994), further monitoring of the cohorts of teachers who have performed action research may provide a connection to increased classroom effectiveness. The participant responses did not identify any effects of action research on their school sites in general, but individual perspectives may be inadequate to examine the larger picture. The general improvement of quality of projects and attitudes toward action research were encouraging. Further research may focus on the effects of mentor teachers and the school environment on outcomes and attitudes toward action research.

It is difficult to establish the connection between teachers who have been trained in research methods and have conducted action research aimed at improving their classroom practice, to subsequent improvements in the quality of education for children. Faculty and graduate candidate data support continued investment in an action research project to focus classroom teachers on the benefits and opportunities presented by reflective practice supported through research activity. To that end, we will sustain our own research observations and continue to monitor action research effects on teachers and classroom learners, developing alternative school-based perspectives for future studies.

ReferencesAdler, S. (2003). Dilemmas of action research. Action in Teacher Education. 25(1), 76-82. Auger, W., & Wideman, R. (2000). Using action research to open doors to life-long learning.

Education, 121(1), 120-127. Ax, J., Ponte, P., & Brouwer, N. (2008). Action research in initial teacher education: An

Explorative study. Education Action Research, 16(1), 55-72.Beers, M. (2001). Why management research findings are unimplementable: An action science

perspective. Reflections, 2, 58-65.Benton, C., & Schillo, J. (2004). School and university collaboration partners: A model for

collegial support of literacy and professional development. Action in Teacher Education (25) 4.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allen & Bacon.

Brock, P. A. (2004). From capstones to touchstones: Preparative assessment and its use in teacher education. Assessment Update, 16(1), 8-9.

Brown, M., & Macatangay, A. (2002). The impact of action research for professional development: Case studies in two Manchester schools. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 25(1), 35-45.

Cain, T., Holmes, M., Larrett, A., & Mattock, J. (2007). Literature-informed, one-turn actionresearch: Three cases and a commentary. British Educational Research Journal. (33)1, 91-106.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S, (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Corey, S.M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York: Teachers

62

College Press. Dewey, J. (1929). Quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and

action. New York: Minton Balch & Company.

Elliott, L., Daily, N. L, Fredricks, L., & Graham, M. S. (2008). Transitioning from students to professionals: Using a writing across the curriculum model to scaffold portfolio development. The Teacher Educator, 43(1), 46 - 58

Gibbons, M., Limoges, H., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S, Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Green, S.K., & Brown, M. (2006). Promoting action research and problem solving among teacher candidates: One elementary school's journey. Action in Teacher Education, 27(4), 45-53.

Henderson, M., Hunt, S., & Wester, C. (1999). Action research: A survey of AACTE-Member Institutions. Education, 119, 663-669.

Hendricks, C. (2009).Using modeling and creating a research discourse community to teach a doctoral action research course. International Journal for the Scholarship of

Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 2-14.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.Lytle, S., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1994). Inquiry, knowledge, and practice. In S. Hollingsworth &

H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 22-51). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McTaggart, L. (1994). Participatory action research: Issues in theory and practice. Educational Action Research, 2(3), 313-337.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult. In J. Mezirow & Associates, Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress, 3-33. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mills, G. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Noftke, S., & Stevenson, R. (1995). Educational action research: Becoming practically critical. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Oja, S. N., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.

Papastephanou, M. (2006). Philosophical research and educational action research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40(2), 187-203.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. NY: Basic Books.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective, (2nd ed). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

63

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yorks, L. (2005). Adult learning and the generation of new knowledge and meaning: Creating liberating spaces for fostering adult learning through practitioner-based collaborative action inquiry. Teachers College Record. 107(6), 1217-1228.

Author BiographiesCynthia J. Benton, Professor of Education at the State University of New York at Cortland, teaches research methods and arts education and has published in the areas of teacher development, the teaching profession, and gender. Email: cynthia.benton@cortland.edu

Susan K. Stratton, Assistant Professor in Childhood/Early Childhood Department at State University of New York at Cortland, has research interests in longitudinal studies of preservice teachers' writing and science method instruction. Email: susan.stratton@cortland.edu

Karen Stearns, Assistant Professor of English Education at the State University of New York at Cortland, teaches young adult literature and English education. Email: karen.stearns@cortland.edu

64

Appendix AMaster’s Project Quality Rubric

Name______________________________________________ Year completed______________________

Program: MST MSED Other (RDG) Actively Teaching? (Includes substituting) Yes No

Components Examined Description Target(3)

Acceptable (2)

NotAcceptable

(1)Appropriate Style, Context, & Method

APA style:Headings logical and well labeled; spacing, Paragraphs, page numbering accurate Mechanics/Grammar: spelling and organization flawless; Appropriate use of quotations

Literature Review: Broad, critical analysis ofLiterature, coherent organization, clear authorVoice in transition and interpretation, balancedUse of references; contemporary sources

Methodology: Clear, comprehensive descriptionOf setting, participants, researcher and process ofProject; timelineDesign strength and coherenceApplications for classroom clearly identified

Writing Style: Achieves professional voice andResearch interpretation; sentence structure, wordchoice and professional tone are used consistentlyRelevance of Project, Including Scope: Strength,Interpretation of current writing on the topic.Breadth of connection to other relevant topics

Relevance to TeacherDevelopment (Voice)

Connection between the writer and the Outcomes/interpretation of the projectExperiences are evident--Writer describes how the project affectedOwn growth as a developing teacher--Writer’s voice is clear, defensibleIndicators? ___________________ (p.# ____)

Overall Qualityof Project Made a clear contribution to the field Exceptional OK Marginal

Describe the project’s message/contribution.

65

Appendix BProgram Graduate Survey

Seven-Item Electronic Survey, Emailed to 72 Program Graduates

  

Electronically Mailed Survey Questions 1-7

(5-point Likert Scale: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)

 I found the Master’s project useful to me in understanding a wide variety of research.

  The project was useful as a way of better understanding how teachers solve problems in the

classroom. 

 The process of doing the Master’s project was very much like what I see classroom teachers

doing to solve problems. 

 I use some of the techniques and ideas from my Master’s project in my current teaching

practices.

 I believe that completing the Master’s project has provided me with a valuable learning

experience that helped me develop as a professional teacher.

 The things that I learned in doing the Master’s project have influenced the way I teach. 

 I would be interested in trying another research project in the future. 

   

Appendix C

66

Faculty Writing Survey

In the interest of improving our graduate programs in the Childhood/Early Childhood Department, we have surveyed graduates and would now invite your input on the writing component of the programs. Please complete the short survey below.

How valuable is conducting an action research project to our Master’s Program(s)?

Not valuable____Somewhat valuable____Not relevant____Quite valuable____Very valuable____

Approximately what percentage of course credit do you assign to research and writing? Circle one.

5 percent10 percent20 percent30 percent50 percent75 percentGreater than 75 percent

Are you currently conducting any type of action research?

Yes____No____

What most influences individual candidates’ research projects?

Their own thinking____Other courses and faculty input____Current events ____Other, please describe below____

How strongly are your course requirements related to the reading, research, and writing outcomes of the program?

Highly related____ Somewhat related ____Slightly related____Not related____

Please add any comments, ideas, or observations about the research and writing requirements of Childhood/Early Childhood Graduate Programs.

How would you rate SUNY Cortland’s Master’s degree graduates compared to other teachers in the state?

67

Strongly proficient, exceeds other teachers____Equally proficient____Less proficient____

To what degree are you convinced the research project should be continued in our program?

Definitely should continue____Should continue____Neutral____Needs reconsideration____Probably discontinue____Definitely discontinue____

68

Start NEW PAGEA Regional Survey of Teacher Leadership: A Catalyst for Re-examining Leadership Preparation

Kathleen Dickinson RockwoodManhattanville College

Debra J. ThomasRockland Teachers’ Center Institute

Ernest J. PiermariniSt. Thomas Aquinas College

Ronald D. ValentiCollege of New Rochelle

AbstractThis exploratory study emerged from the work of a regional prekindergarten-18

leadership preparation consortium that sought to create a descriptive profile of teacher leadership in the Lower Hudson Region of New York State that would inform leadership preparation practices. Two parallel surveys were distributed electronically during the 2006-2007 academic year, one to administrators and a second one to identified teacher leaders in the Lower Hudson Region of New York State. In this paper we report the results of this regional study and link our findings to the current national literature. We highlight steps that we have taken to be more proactive in supporting educators who are teacher leaders and then discuss possible implications for other leadership preparation programs. This consortium, while organic in development, has become a unique, replicable model that represents the many voices of the educational community. Together we created a pathway to blend our voices, share best practices, and shape the scope of our regional study and evolving work together.

***

The concept of teacher leadership and the idea of empowering teachers is certainly not a new idea. For over 20 years there have been calls for major reform in education that stressed the importance of increasing teacher professionalism. The National Commission on Excellence in Teaching (1983) emphasized that teachers’ roles must be viewed differently. The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (1986) and the Holmes Group (1986) stressed the importance of developing a profession that could meet the challenges of the times. The notion of distributed leadership, where teachers assume a variety of leadership roles, emerged as one of the recommendations the Holmes Group endorsed to facilitate the redesign of schools.

This exploratory study emerged from the work of a regional PreK-18 leadership preparation consortium, represented by teacher center directors, union leaders, higher education

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning

69

Volume 5, Number 1 Fall/Winter 2010 XX

Running head from here to end of article should be Rockwood, Thomas, Piermarini, and Valentifaculty, and public school administrators in the Lower Hudson Region of New York. The group decided to create a descriptive profile of teacher leadership in the region that would inform leadership preparation practices. During one of the consortium meetings, the question was raised whether teacher leaders were a neglected pool of individuals who deserved more professional development support that could be addressed as a consortium. While the group—authors included—observed teacher leadership as a growing phenomenon in the region, it had no data to substantiate professional development needs or prevalent school district practices.

The authors set out to develop a snapshot of teacher leadership in our region that could inform future professional development decisions and planning that would support teacher leaders’ needs. Teacher leadership was defined broadly as “those individuals who perform leadership functions, either through formally or informally designated leadership roles that do not require administrative certification.” Our primary questions of the study included the following: (a) What are the varied roles and responsibilities of teacher leaders? (b) What knowledge and skills are required of teacher leaders to do their jobs effectively? (c) What types of support are teacher leaders provided at the school and district levels? and (d) What are the career aspirations of teacher leaders? In this paper we report the results of the regional study and link our findings to the current national literature.

Review of Supporting LiteratureTeacher Leader Roles and Responsibilities

According to York-Barr and Duke’s (2004) meta-analysis of the teacher leadership literature, there are some important differences between the conception and practice of teacher leadership roles and responsibilities. These differences are in part due to the fact that there is no agreed-upon definition of teacher leadership or common practices that formalize teacher leader roles and responsibilities within schools. Johnson and Donaldson (2007) found that teacher leaders are often left to define their own roles and responsibilities. York-Barr and Duke (2004) expressed concern that “the construct of teacher leadership is not well-defined, conceptually or operationally” (p. 255). Other scholars advocated for a more flexible and broad definition of teacher leadership to capture their changing roles and responsibilities, both formal and informal (Gabriel, 2005; Harris, 2003; Muijs & Harris, 2007).

Despite the varying conceptions of teacher leadership, there are numerous examples of teachers as leaders in the literature (Ackerman & MacKenzie, 2006; Barth, 2001; Danielson, 2006, Dozier, 2007; Frost & Durrant, 2003; Harrison & Killion, 2007; Johnson & Donaldson, 2007; Institute for Educational Leadership, 2008; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). For example, Frost and Durrant (2003) examined teacher leadership roles through the lens of “learner-centered development work” (p.180). Teachers in their case studies were viewed as change agents who assumed leadership roles that impacted teaching and learning in their classrooms as they engaged in action research. Danielson (2006) assumed a similar stance as Frost and Durrant in her emphasis on the importance of teacher leaders’ work being grounded in making student and classroom decisions that are usually transacted in informal ways. Dozier’s (2007) online survey of accomplished teachers revealed teachers are being recognized and tapped for their talents, but they want to exert more influence. A majority of her sample of reputed teacher leaders are eager

70

to expand their roles in the policy arena to impact substantive decision making within the school or district.

York-Barr and Duke (2004) developed a helpful conceptual framework that categorizes the multiple teacher leader roles over 20 years into the following broad dimensions of practice: “coordination management; school or district curriculum work; professional development of colleagues; participant in school change/improvement; parent and community involvement; contributions to the profession; and preservice teacher education” (p. 266).

Knowledge and Skills Required of Teacher LeadersThe literature supports the stance that teacher leaders’ professional development needs

should be viewed as ongoing, individualized, and occurring in different places and times, including formal and job-embedded training (York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Leadership training can start with preservice teachers. Lamlech and Hertzog (1998) tracked a purposely selected graduate group of individuals who had been teaching 2 to 4 years. They had been involved in a program that devoted two semesters to collaborative work and collegial coaching about teaching and were considered good teachers when they completed their student teaching. After surveying the teachers and their principals, and then conducting follow-up interviews with the teachers and principals, they found that 13 of the 14 teachers demonstrated leadership skills and professional behavior that were usually seen in more experienced teacher leaders. Areas that were cited by Lemlech and Hertzog (1998) included: (a) professional participation, commitment (e.g., as demonstrated by active participation on school and district committees, comfort in communicating with more experienced colleagues about their pedagogy and instructional practices); (b) self-development (e.g., active initiation of collaborative relationships with colleagues to further their professional growth); (c) professional relationships (e.g., assumption of broader professional responsibilities and active decision making in the school and district). It seems that school district policies and supportive cultures, coupled with the teacher preparation program’s model of collaborative coaching, impacted the preservice teachers’ level of involvement.

Richardson (2003) concluded that administrators should focus on expanding teachers’ knowledge and skills to support decision making. Principals should help teachers understand the big picture and the larger context beyond their classrooms that impact teaching and learning. Professional development should focus first on helping teachers become excellent teachers and communicators (Richardson, 2003). Then as teachers are ready to assume various leadership roles (such as literacy coach, professional development presenter, etc.), they should be supported to develop the knowledge and skills required of the specific leadership roles. Lack of targeted professional development has been cited as a problem; with assumptions made that teachers already have the requisite knowledge and skills (Dozier, 2007). York-Barr and Duke (2004) summarized the three content themes for teacher leadership development that emerged from the literature:

Continuing to learn about and demonstrate advanced curricular, instructional, and assessment practices; understanding the school culture and how to initiate and support change in schools; and developing the knowledge and skills necessary to support the development of colleagues in individual, small group, and large group interactions.(p. 282)

Organizational Support of Teacher Leaders

71

Much of what is needed to support teacher leaders in a school is a result of a favorable organizational culture. This is illustrated by Beattie’s (2002) research that focused on the culture of a high school in Canada where the culture embodied a learning community. All teachers rotated into teacher leader roles for a two-year period. In this culture, “the leaders and learners are inextricably interconnected” (p. 200). Beattie noted that this dynamic learning community flourished because certain structures and processes were in place. Specific attention was directed to modeling leadership behaviors and mentoring individuals to assume leadership roles. Similarly, the culture of professional development schools enables preservice teacher candidates to assume leadership roles and demonstrate leadership skills that are seldom demonstrated in more traditional school settings (Teitel, 2001).

There appears to be strong consensus among researchers (Anderson, 2004; Johnson & Donaldson, 2007; Institute for Educational Leadership, 2008; Moller & Pankake, 2006; York-Barr & Duke, 2004) that the building-level leader or principal plays a pivotal role in providing continuous support to teacher leaders. Support is demonstrated by creating the opportunities for teacher leaders to play a decision-making role in the school, by helping teachers balance priorities and tensions, and by assuming a sustained mentoring role that exposes the teacher leaders to the “obstacles and opportunities” within their school community (Frost & Durrant, 2003, p.180). York-Barr & Duke (2004) stressed that one of the strongest themes in the literature was “the notion that the emergence of leadership is fostered within the context of a learning community—big (e.g., school or district) or small (e.g., small groups)” (p. 282).

The district’s central administration can play an important support role as well. Mangin’s (2007) exploratory study highlighted the important role that central office can play in communicating to building principals. Mangin found that the teacher leader instructional specialists received the most support from building principals when central office sustained ongoing communication with the building principals about the instructional specialists’ roles, responsibilities, and progress. Similarly, Johnson and Donaldson (2007) stressed that “the roles must be introduced deliberately and supported fully” (p. 12). York-Barr and Duke (2004) identified categories of conditions that influence teacher leaders’ effectiveness that combine building and district roles that include: (a) cultivating a culture that supports and respects teacher leadership; (b) clarifying roles, relationships and responsibilities; and (c) creating structures that are responsive to teacher leaders’ needs and scope of work (e.g., sufficient time to meet with colleagues).

Support also should be sought from other organizations. With the help of an external partner, such as a university, inquiry-based work can be fully supported in the school. Frost and Durrant (2003) recommended that this could be done by: “(a) scaffolding a process [that would encourage] reflection, planning, and strategic action; (b) developing support groups or critical friends for inquiry-based work; and (c) developing a network to extend the discourse” (p. 180). Providing networking opportunities for teachers leaders to share their practices and to reduce their isolation has received increasing attention as an important support (Berry, Norton, & Byrd, 2007; Dozier, 2007).

Career Aspirations of Teacher Leaders Moller and Panake (2006) provide a helpful framework for viewing a teacher’s career.

They warn that “principals cannot make assumptions about who will be willing to lead” (p. 50). They note that there is a growing trend that beginning teachers are looking for leadership challenges outside of the classroom. Often these early career teachers bring more enthusiasm to a

72

leadership role than some seasoned teachers. Moller and Panake’s compelling finding is noteworthy; teachers’ interest in assuming leadership roles can be found at any career stage, contingent on the building-level support.

It is well recognized that there are many tensions and challenges associated with teachers aspiring to or assuming leadership roles. Common challenges cited by researchers include: time constraints, poorly defined roles, fear of leadership role, administrative support, balancing roles, and hostility from colleagues (Danielson, 2006; Trautman, 2005; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Fear of leadership and crossing over to the other side appears to be a fear that exists even among teachers who are enrolled in an administrative preparation program (Trautman, 2005). One can only conjecture that the fear response is based on past conditioning in school cultures where formal demarcations exist between teachers and administrators. School culture exerts strong influence on who is willing to become a teacher leader or future administrator.

The scholarship and professional practice literature reviewed to this point in the paper provides an overview of teacher leadership at the beginning of the 21st century. National trends and patterns as well as established viewpoints and perspectives on an issue, however, do not necessarily accurately reflect the context of teacher leadership in a particular region or area. With that in mind, the consortium, located in the Lower Hudson Region of New York State discussed earlier, decided to create a profile of teacher leadership in the region served by the consortium. The region represents three counties in the Lower Hudson area, north of New York City.

Our research is an example of applied research that was designed and conducted to inform and guide professional development for educational leadership preparation in the Lower Hudson Region. A secondary purpose of the study was to determine the extent to which teacher leaders offered an untapped pool of individuals who were interested in future school administration roles.

Methodology The study focused on answering the following primary questions: (a) What are the varied

roles and responsibilities of teacher leaders in the region? (b) What knowledge and skills are required of teacher leaders to do their jobs effectively? (c) What types of support are teacher leaders provided at the school and district levels? and (d) What are the career aspirations of teacher leaders?

The researchers used Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com), an online survey creation tool, to distribute two parallel surveys electronically during the 2006-2007 academic year. One survey was sent to administrators and another one to identified teacher leaders in the Lower Hudson Region of New York. The survey defined teacher leaders as individuals who were in informal or formally designated teacher leader roles that did not require administration certification or entail administration responsibilities. Organizational e-mail lists were used to distribute to an administrator sample that included public school superintendents, principals, assistant principals, and headmasters of non-public schools. The teacher leader sample included public and non-public school teacher leaders who were identified by members of the consortium. The consortium members included regional teacher center directors, union leadership, school and district administrators, and an area college educational leadership department chair. Organizational networks were employed to identify and distribute the surveys to teacher leaders who had been recognized as leaders by these organizations. The networks drew upon consortium member representation that included the Lower Hudson Teacher Center Network, New York

73

State United Teachers, the Lower Hudson Council of School Superintendents, the New York Association of Independent Schools, and a college graduate leadership program.

The survey questions were developed by the two lead researchers, who have considerable knowledge and experience in educational leadership; one chairs a leadership preparation program and the other is a director of a regional teacher center. Then, to ensure validity, the surveys went through a series of substantive reviews by the consortium members, with a final review from another nationally recognized quantitative researcher in a leadership preparation program who was not associated with the study. Given this rigorous review process, a formal field test of the survey was not initiated. Both the School Administrator and the Teacher Leader surveys included 16 parallel questions that represented a combination of five-point Likert and categorical response. Three questions also included the option of adding written comments. Two additional questions were directed only to the teacher leader sample regarding their career aspirations and to the administrator sample further probing teacher leader contributions and effectiveness in working with administrators. The survey questions covered the following categories: (a) respondent demographic information (e.g., school type and level, community type, years experience, age, gender; (b) teacher leader roles and responsibilities; (c) knowledge and skills required of teacher leaders; (d) organizational support of teacher leaders; (e) how teacher leaders assume leadership roles in school/district; and (f) teacher leader impact on school improvement efforts. We made a decision to utilize more familiar teacher leader role designations than to draw upon York-Barr and Duke’s (2004) role conceptual framework because we felt that these titles would be easier for the respondents to address. In later analysis we compared the responses to York-Barr and Duke’s framework.

The study was approved by the College’s IRB Committee. Since the surveys were distributed electronically, respondent consent, along with confidentiality disclosures, was incorporated into the survey directions and did not require a signature. The survey responses were anonymous. It should be noted that not all respondents answered every question and this impacted the results, with some categories not adding up to 100%.

The survey data were analyzed using the Microsoft EXCEL spreadsheet functions to compute mean percentiles for each of the categorical and Likert Scale questions. After creating a summary composite of the Teacher Leader and the Administrators surveys, further analysis examined differences among subcategories (e.g., gender, age, grade level, and public/private school setting). A specific comparison was made between teacher leader respondents’ age and expressed interest in a future administrative position. The qualitative data obtained from respondent comments to several of the questions were analyzed using a constant comparative method that resulted in identifying specific categories and themes.

Survey FindingsRespondent Profiles

Of the 149 teacher leader respondents, 79% were female who represented a broad range of teaching experience, with 26% reporting 25 years or more experience. The sample represented an age span that included: 20-29 (4%); 30-39 (26%); 40-50 (24%); 50-60 (36%); and 60+ (10%). Over two thirds of the respondents worked in suburban schools, with the rest represented in small cities (16%), large cities (8%), and rural (2%). This sample accurately captured our region. Over half of the respondents reported they worked in public schools and 10% worked in private schools, revealing that 40% of the respondents did not identify their school community types.

74

The largest number of teacher leader respondents were at the elementary level (46%), followed by high school (34%), and middle school (20%).

Approximately 300 surveys were distributed electronically to administrators, with a 20% response rate. The administrator respondents were evenly represented in gender and setting (e.g., public versus non-public). A large percentage (43%) of the administrator respondents worked in the central office, with the other respondents at a high school (23%), middle school (14%), and elementary school (20%). More of the administrators worked in suburban schools (38%), with the rest represented in large cities (18%), small cities (4%), and rural (6%). One third of the respondents did not report their school district community type. The administrator respondents represented extensive experience, with 43% having 25 or more years in administration and 78% having 11 through 25 or more years of experience.

Teacher Leader Roles and ResponsibilitiesThe national data indicated teacher leaders assume many, varied leadership roles, and that

was also the case in this regional survey, with many different titles and nuanced responsibilities. The most prevalent roles cited by both administrators and teacher leaders were that of mentor and a team leader. Other often-mentioned roles included: union leader, department chair or coordinator, committee chair, coach, and staff developer. Teacher leaders frequently assumed multiple roles; some reported this created additional stress, especially when the roles had conflicting or overlapping time demands. No difference was noted between public and private school teacher leader respondents in terms of the number and diversity of teacher leader roles. Table 1 captured some role differences among the elementary and secondary levels. Department coordinators were represented at the middle and high school levels and grade-level team leaders were commonly represented at the elementary level. When given the option to identify other specific teacher leader roles, 18% of the teacher leaders sample noted 39 different role designations. Categories that emerged included: 18% staff developer roles (e.g., teacher trainer, lead in-service trainer); 20% lead teacher roles (e.g., project team leader, content area team leader); 13% instructional specialist/facilitator roles; 8% dean of faculty roles; 8% held positions in professional organization boards; and the remaining 33% expanded on the categories already designated on the survey.

INSERT ROCKWOOD_TABLE 1_REVISED HERE

Teacher leaders assume their roles in a variety of ways. Formal appointment was the most prevalent, as indicated by 67% of the teacher leaders and 82% of the administrators. Formal appointment entailed applying for a leadership position and then the school/district formally announced (often at a school board meeting) the designation. Additional compensation did not always accompany formal appointment. Volunteering was the second most common means of moving into a teacher leadership role, as indicated by 48% of teacher leaders and 64% of administrators. In this situation, a leadership need would be identified by administration and a teacher leader would volunteer. For 25% of the teacher leaders, a leadership role evolved informally, with no formal designation.

Knowledge and Skills NeededTable 2 summarizes specific areas where teacher leaders need more knowledge and skills

in performing their responsibilities by comparing the teacher leader and administrator responses.

75

Respondents could check more than one response. Response choices included: (a) facilitating effective meetings; (b) negotiating conflicts; (c) engaging colleagues in effective problem solving process; (d) becoming more knowledgeable about effective pedagogical practices; (e) developing effective coaching strategies; (f) utilizing student performance data to close achievement gap; and (g) other.

INSERT ROCKWOOD TABLE 2 HERE

Both teacher leader (60%) and administrator (70%) respondents identified “engaging colleagues in effective problem solving” as a professional development priority. Administrators identified more pervasive training needs by rating all of the other five knowledge/skill options with similar secondary importance; while teacher leader respondents appeared to identify needs that were specific to their leadership responsibilities and school/grade-level demands. A second common priority identified by the elementary (41%), middle (43%) and high school (41%) respondents was “utilizing student performance data to close the achievement gap.” Elementary respondents noted equal importance (41%) to learning how to “negotiating conflict situations.” Whereas, middle- level teachers (40%) identified “becoming more knowledgeable about effective pedagogical practices” as a third priority.

The majority of administrators (87% strongly agree/agree) indicated that it is important for teacher leaders to know how to work with school administrators. This question was only directed to the administrator sample. It should be noted that a couple of administrator comments raised a question about the wording and possible misinterpretation of this question.

Means of Supporting Teacher LeadersTable 3 summarizes the means of supporting teacher leaders, as reported by teacher

leaders and administrators. Providing stipends for the additional work was cited by both teacher leaders (67%) and administrators (77%) as the primary means of support. Ongoing communication with the immediate supervisor was another important means of support, as noted by 58% of teacher leaders and 64% of the administrators. Supervisory support was identified as a primary support for teacher leaders in private schools. Other supports were reported at a higher level among the administrator (A) respondents than the teacher leaders (TL) that include: targeted professional development (46% TL; 64% A); release time for the additional responsibilities (40% TL; 69% A); and coaching support (11% TL; 41% A). None of the private school respondents reported receiving release time. It also should be noted that 10% of the teacher leaders and 9% of the administrator respondents indicated that no support was available. Only 25% of the teacher leaders reported receiving professional development that was targeted to their specific roles and responsibilities.

INSERT ROCKWOOD TABLE 3 HERE

Comments from administrators point to potential barriers to support. One administrator noted,

District leadership has strongly supported the development of teacher leaders. The irony is that the teachers’ association has not. Our efforts to promote teacher leaders as coaches/instructional specialists/staff developers have met with stiff, persistent resistance from vocal members of the teachers’ association.

76

Another administrator pointed out another critical problem. As a district, we are often involved in too many initiatives at one time. This dilutes effectiveness and wears out our teacher leaders. Teachers lately report a tendency to use our teacher leaders as “rubber stamps” to imply input when in fact decisions are made prior to the leaders’ involvement.

Interest in a Future Administrative Position Two survey questions queried teacher leader aspirations and were only directed to the

teacher leader sample. It is very clear that teacher leaders value their roles and enjoy keeping their work close to the classroom and student contact. When asked whether they plan on continuing to work as teacher leaders for years to come, 80% agreed strongly or agreed. Approximately 50% of the teacher leaders have no interest in pursuing a position in administration. Of this group, 10% are ready to retire. Yet, 25% of the respondents are interested in an eventual administrative role. The readiness of this group of respondents to assume administrative responsibilities is varied. There was a weak but negative correlation regarding age or experience and interest in administration. The younger teacher leaders were more likely to have aspirations to advance their leadership responsibilities than the older teacher leaders. Additionally, private school teacher leaders were less interested in administration than were the public school teacher leaders.

Conclusions and Discussion of ImplicationsIn this section we focus our conclusions on the most prominent findings that surfaced for

each question and refer to the literature to compare our conclusions. We align our conclusions with a discussion of general implications for leadership preparation, followed by some specific actions we have taken as a PreK-18 consortium. The consortium, while organic in development has become a unique, replicable model that represents the many voices of the educational community. As partners, we are teachers and administrators, professors, union leaders and policy makers. Together we have created a pathway to blend our voices, share best practices and shape the scope of our work together. We have done this in a respectful manner that honors each partner’s perspective and expertise.

Roles and Responsibilities of Teacher Leaders Our findings suggest that teacher leaders in our region assume multiple roles and

responsibilities within the school and district settings. Teacher leaders’ titles and functions vary across districts, detailing a wide range of leadership opportunities. This regional finding resonates with the national literature (York-Barr & Duke, 2004) that portrays a close relationship between the emergence of teacher leader roles and specific school context needs. Using York-Barr and Duke’s role categories, the most prevalent role cited by both teacher leaders and administrators was that of mentor, reflecting a professional development function. Other high ranked roles included grade-level team leader and coordinator that reflected a management function. Roles in union leadership reflected contributions to the profession that go beyond the school district. District committee chair or representative encompassed another high ranked area, that could include curriculum as well as other school/district planning and decision making functions.

Our findings indicated a noteworthy difference between teacher leader and administrator responses. While approximately two thirds of the teacher leaders reported that they are satisfied

77

with their roles and effectiveness in these roles, one third expressed some level of reservation or disagreement. Whereas, the overwhelming majority of administrator respondents reported that teacher leaders are effective in their roles and do contribute to school improvement efforts. Lack of role clarity, a problem noted in the literature (York-Barr & Duke, 2004), was noted by some teacher leader respondents’ comments, and may be an important contributing factor that supports teacher leader role satisfaction and effectiveness.

Our study is germane to leadership programs that have partnership relationships with PreK-12 schools. Having this type of relationship can provide the opportunity to begin a dialogue about teacher leadership within a district, focusing on how teachers’ talents are identified and how the teacher leader roles and responsibilities are defined. York-Barr and Duke (2004) recommend that “the likelihood of being successful as a teacher leader is increased if roles and expectations are mutually shaped and negotiated by teacher leaders, their colleagues, and principals on the basis of context-specific (and changing) instructional and improvement needs” (p. 288). While our consortium has initiated a dialogue about teacher leadership in our region, we have not addressed the importance of role clarity in an explicit manner.

Knowledge and Skills of Teacher LeadersMost significantly, the majority of the teacher leaders reported that they do not receive

professional development that is targeted to their specific roles and responsibilities. Both administrators and teacher leaders agreed that developing effective skills in facilitating problem solving with colleagues is one priority area. Another area that the teacher leader sample ranked high was “utilizing student performance data to close achievement gap.” Grade-level distinctions were noted for other knowledge and skill needs. Whereas, administrators rated all six knowledge/skill area options as important.

The knowledge and skills identified by teacher leaders can lead to the design of targeted professional development. Leadership programs can develop and provide support services that encourage a discrete set of skills, knowledge, and dispositions that support teacher leadership. These programs can be delivered through in-service, conferences, workshops and/or graduate- level opportunities leading to leadership certification. They can be offered in collaboration with other educational service providers (e.g., regional education service centers, teacher centers).

Our consortium’s leadership preparation program provides a core foundation of knowledge and skill development in an advanced certificate Teacher Leader program. The courses include: (a) Leading a Learning Organization as a Teacher Leader; (b) Communicating Effectively as a Teacher Leader; (c) Supporting Student Learning as a Teacher Leader; (d) Monitoring Student Learning as a Teacher Leader; and (e) Making Effective Decisions and Solving Problems. The content of this program was informed by the literature but it evolved through a collaborative process with consortium partners. Members of our consortium included area teacher center directors, union leadership, administrator representatives, and the college department chair. The college department chair shared the literature with consortium members, along with a proposed program outline. This information served as a catalyst for productive input and exchange about specific types of learning experiences that should be built into the program. While the college department chair facilitated the process, program development decision making resided with the group, with consensus as our working norm. Decisions encompassed the course content, field-based experiences, means to recruit potential candidates, and roles that members would assume once the program started. One partner organization hosted the program.

78

Another partner provided administrative support. All partners promoted the program through their networks and media sources.

The ideal companion to this program would be district-level support that targets additional role specific professional development. We are striving to reach this level of coordination with our partner districts. Our next step will be to assume more of a critical friend role with our consortium partner districts by advocating for on-going, contextualized professional development for teacher leaders that would take into account the school needs, the leadership role, and the teacher leader’s development. Our teacher leader program provides an important launching point for teachers, many of whom never identified themselves as leaders, but the message we want to convey is that the learning and growth must be continuous and should not be bounded by a formal program.

Organizational Support of Teacher LeadershipStipends are the most common form of support for teacher leaders in public schools;

whereas, in private schools close communication with the immediate supervisor was cited as the primary support. Less than 40% of the teacher leaders receive release time to fulfill their responsibilities. This means that those teachers assume the additional responsibilities on top of their regular teaching load. The need for more time to fulfill responsibilities came out repeatedly in the teacher leader respondents’ comments. Ongoing coaching support is provided minimally. Overall, the administrator respondents reported providing more pervasive district support than the teacher leader respondents experienced in their settings.

This study revealed that more building-level support is needed for teacher leaders to effectively complete their job responsibilities. Barth (2001) stressed that the principal assumes a critical role in supporting a teacher leader’s effectiveness. York-Barr and Duke (2004) concurred and concluded that the effectiveness of teacher leaders was integrally tied to school culture. It is evident that leadership preparation programs need to place more attention on the value of teacher leadership and ways to provide building-level support.

In response, we reexamined our preparation of school administrators. We now place more focus on helping aspiring building leaders understand how they can build leadership capacity through school cultures that support teacher leadership. In addition, our consortium hosted a Leadership Forum in 2008 to discuss our findings, using the study as a catalyst to start a dialogue with area school administrators and board members about how to support teacher leadership in their organizations. Consortium partners were actively involved in planning and facilitating this forum. One action step that was taken at the forum was to create a Teacher Leadership Steering Committee that was charged with developing and implementing various outreach efforts directed to area districts and professional organizations.

Career Aspirations of Teacher LeadersThe majority of teacher leader respondents reported satisfaction with current roles and

many of them want to continue as teacher leaders. This sentiment was amplified by the passionate comments made by many of the teacher leader respondents. Nonetheless, twenty-five percent of the teacher leader respondents are interested in a future administrative role. Of interest, the younger, less experienced teacher leaders expressed stronger career aspirations for future administrative roles than did the older, more experienced teacher leaders. Private school teacher leaders expressed less interest in administration than public school teachers.

79

To help support career aspirations of teacher leaders, our consortium spearheaded the development of a Teacher Leader advanced certificate program, viewing it as an important complement to a college’s leadership preparation program for administrators. We are attempting to sustain a network of teachers who completed the program, providing leadership opportunities and recognition outside of their districts. We took this step knowing that networks have offered an important source of support for teacher leaders (Berry, Norton, & Byrd, 2007). As previously mentioned, the Teacher Leadership Steering Committee was formed in spring 2008 to promote teacher leadership in the region. One Teacher Leader program completer co-chairs the Steering Committee, and various other program completers participate in the committee and have been involved in making presentations to administrator organizations. Our consortium is intent on sustaining our teacher leader network to provide support and leadership opportunities as they emerge.

SummaryThis study is relevant to leadership preparation programs that have partnership

relationships with PreK-12 school districts. There is an opportunity for colleges and universities to support and cultivate the growing importance of teacher leadership in education by beginning a dialogue about teacher leadership with partner districts. Dialogue may help districts more clearly define teacher leadership, focus on how teachers’ talents are identified, and how teacher leaders’ roles and responsibilities are defined and supported. As previously cited by Frost and Durrant (2003), higher education can play an important role as a critical friend and outside partner in the development of leaders within the schools. In this role, sustained attention could be directed to creating a model that supports inquiry-based work, discourse, and strategic planning that facilitate the cultural shifts needed to support leadership capacity in our schools. This has been accomplished through the development of sustained partnerships between leadership preparation program institutions and school districts as represented by the consortium that spearheaded this study.

We learned that our regional snapshot of teacher leadership mirrors the teacher leadership literature. How teacher leaders are employed and supported are contingent on context, culture, and research-based best practice. Our sample represents a combination of first- and second-wave (Silva, Gilbert, & Nolan, 2000) teacher leadership, with priorities directed toward efficient coordination and instructional leadership. To improve the support for the next level of teacher leader influence in school improvement decision making, a more systemic approach needs to be taken that involves multiple constituents in redefining leadership (Donaldson, 2006; Lambert, 2003). Emerging research (Reeves, 2008; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006) highlights the potential for this third wave (Silva, Gilbert, & Nolan, 2000) by promoting specific strategies that include having teacher leaders engage in action research and work in organizational frameworks that focus on impacting student achievement through collaborative problem solving.

Considering our regional survey findings, we hope they will provoke questions that will open up dialogue, followed by changes in practices that will better support teacher leadership. Some of the questions that have been addressed by the study include: How can our program coordinate leadership development with teacher preparation? Should the state certification authorities create a separate certification area for teacher leaders? Should districts and collective bargaining units determine separate compensation schedules for teacher leaders? How can professional development offered by outside providers be coordinated more effectively to target the needs of area teacher leaders? These questions deserve further attention and research.

80

Recommendations for Future ResearchConsidering our findings and the related literature we previously discussed, there is

important future research that needs to be initiated. An important starting point is at the building level with the school principal. Murphy (2005) called for further research on the critical role played by the school principal in ensuring the viability of teacher leadership.

Two additional areas for future research are particularly needed. First, successful models for educating teacher leaders must be studied to identify the skills and knowledge that should anchor professional development experiences (Murphy, 2005). Second, as school administrators strive to involve teacher leaders in substantive decisions related to school improvement issues, research needs to document their impact. The data presented in this paper just tapped into perceptions of effectiveness. Clearly, that is not sufficient. “The ultimate measure of the contributions of teacher leaders...is the impact of teacher leaders on student academic performance” (Wynne, 2001, p. 1). Toward that end, teacher leader effectiveness needs to be studied and described within contexts of support.

References Ackerman, R., & MacKenzie, S. V. (2006). Uncovering teacher leadership. Educational

Leadership, 63(8), 66-70. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx

Anderson, K. D. (2004). The nature of teacher leadership in schools as reciprocal influences between teacher leaders and principals. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(1), 97-113. doi:10.1076/sesi.15.1.97.27489

Barth, R. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 443-449. Retrieved from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kappan.htm

Beattie, M. (2002). Educational leadership: Modeling, mentoring, making and remaking a learning community. European Journal of Teacher Education, 25(2/3), 199-221. doi:10.1080/0261976022000036439

Berry, B., Norton, J., & Byrd, A. (2007). Lessons from networking. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 48-52. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared for the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: Author.

Crowther, F., Kagan, S. S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Donaldson, G.A., Jr. (2006). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people, purpose and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dozier, T. K. (2007). Turning good teachers into great leaders. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 54-58. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx

Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher leadership: Rationale, strategy and impact. School Leadership & Management, 23(2), 173-186. doi:10.1080/1363243032000091940

Gabriel, J. G. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or

81

possibility? School Leadership and Management, 23, 313–324. doi:10.1080/1363243032000112801

Harrison, H., & Killion, J. (2007). Ten roles for teacher leaders. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 74-77. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author.Institute for Educational Leadership (2008). Teacher leadership in high schools: How

principals encourage it, how teachers practice it. Leadership Matters. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Johnson, S. M.; & Donaldson, M. L. (2007). Overcoming the obstacles of leadership. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 8-13. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx

Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership redefined: An evocative context for teacher leadership. School Leadership and Management, 23(4), 421-430. doi:10.1080/1363243032000150953

Lamlech, J. K., & Hertzog, H. (1998, April). Preparing teachers for leadership roles. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Mangin, M. (2007). Facilitating elementary principals’ support for instructional teacher

leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 319-357. doi:10.1177/0013161X07299438

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.

Moller, G., & Pankake, A. (2006). Lead with me: A principal’s guide to teacher leadership. Poughkeepsie, NY: Eye on Education.

Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2007). Teacher leadership in (in)action: Three case studies of contrasting schools. Educational Management Administration Leadership, 35, 111-133.doi:10.1177/1741143207071387

Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Reeves, D. (2008). Reframing teacher leadership to improve your school. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Richardson. L. M. (2003). Helping teachers participate competently in school leadership. Clearing House, 76(4), 202-205. doi:10.1080/00098650309602003

Silva, D. Y., Gimbert, B., & Nolan, J. (2000). Sliding the doors: Locking and unlocking possibilities for teacher leadership. Teachers College Record, 102, 779–804. doi:10.1111/0161-4681.00077

Teitel, L. (2001). How professional development schools make a difference: A review of research. Washington, D.C.: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Trautman, D. (2005, July). Perceptions of aspiring administrators on the role of teacher leader. Paper presented at NCPEA Conference, Washington, D.C.

Wynne, J. (2001). Teachers as leaders in education reform. ERIC Digest. (Report No. EDO-SP-2001-5). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov (ED462376)

82

York-Barr, J, & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-316. doi:10.3102/00346543074003255

Author BiographiesKathleen D. Rockwood, Ed.D., is Associate Professor and Department Chair of Educational Leadership and Special Subjects at Manhattanville College in Purchase, New York. Her current research interests include: teacher leadership, professional development schools and K-18 partnerships, the leader’s role in community outreach, and building leadership capacity within organizations. E-mail: rockwoodk@mville.edu

Debra J. Thomas, Ph.D., is the Executive Director and founding member of the Rockland Teachers’ Center Institute. She serves on the executive board of the Association of Teacher Educators (ATE) and its New York State affiliate (NYSATE). She is also co-chair of the New York State Teacher Center Higher Education Committee. The focus of her research has been teacher leadership and performance evaluation, P-20 public/private partnerships, and community schools. E-mail: djtrc@aol.com

Ernest J. Piermarini, Ed.D., is Associate Professor of Education at St. Thomas Aquinas College in Sparkhill, New York. During this regional study he was the Director of the Purchase Teacher Center. His research interests include: teacher leadership, instructional strategies, professional development, and the integration of 21st century skills into curriculum and instruction. E-mail: epiermar@stac.edu

Ronald D. Valenti, Ph.D., is Director of College and District Partnerships at the College of New Rochelle in Westchester County, New York. He also directs an Executive Leadership Ed.D. doctoral program sponsored by St. John Fisher College, Rochester, New York at the College of New Rochelle. With 28 years experience as a New York State Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Valenti’s research interests include economic and fiscal policy, leadership development and organizational governance in the public sector. E-mail: rvalenti@cnr.edu

83

Start new page hereThe Impact of Professional Development School Self-Studies at Two Urban Elementary Partnerships

Alexandria Lawrence RossNancy DubetzCecilia M. EspinosaScott WolfsonLehman College, City University of New York

Damaris Ramirez-BelloNew York City Primary School 304

Pashka VulajNew York City Primary School 291

AbstractIn this paper, two urban elementary professional development school (PDS) self-studies

utilizing the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) PDS self-assessment structure are described. The self-study process and findings are examined. Examples are provided of how findings from self studies can inform the way that partners proceed in improving student learning, supporting practicing teachers and preparing new teachers. Recommended strategies for using the PDS self-study to further develop K-5 partnerships are presented. Insights gained as a result of engaging in the process are discussed. This type of assessment is important and timely given the increasing emphasis on partnerships that involve meaningful collaborations between schools and institutions of higher learning.

***One of the primary goals of school/university partnerships is to share the responsibility

for improving student learning. Professional development schools (PDSs) are institutions designed to rethink the traditional structure for teaching and learning to meet this important goal. This collaboration is an integral part of educational reform efforts that link schools and universities in preparing teachers and improving student learning.

Investigating the potential of partnerships between schools of higher education and elementary schools is also timely nationwide. On October 22, 2009 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan spoke in New York City about the importance of preparing teachers in P-12 schools to teach in the 21st Century. In his call to action, he exhorted Schools of Education across the nation to redesign and transform their teacher education programs by increasing its focus on prospective teachers’ clinical experiences. In this article, we illustrate the potential of self-study to improveK-16 partnerships by describing how two PDSs used the PDS self-study process to develop a deep understanding of ways to improve teaching and learning in schools and at the university.

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 5, Number 1 Fall/Winter 2010 XX

84

Running head for this article: Ross, Dubetz, Espinosa, Ramirez-Bello, Wolfson, and VulajAs the research base on PDS partnerships grows, so does the evidence that PDSs improve

the quality of teaching in ways that ultimately improve student learning (Abdal-Haqq, 1998; Castle, Fox, O’Hanlan, & Souder 2006; Chance, 2000; Harris & van Tassell, 2005; Houston, Hollis, Clay, Ligons, & Roff, 1999; Klinger, Ahwee, van Garderen, & Hernandez, 2004; Leonard, Lovelace-Taylor, Sanford-DeShields, & Spearman, 2004; Levine, 1997; Teitel, 2001). Participation in PDS partnerships influences the practices of both university-based and school-based educators (Dangel, Dooley, Swars, Truscott, Smith, & Williams, 2009).

Assessing PDSs through Self-StudyThe PDS literature points to the need to determine how partnership work affects

participating individuals and institutions (Breault & Breault, 2003; NCATE, 2001; Norman, 2005; Teitel, 2001). This need can be addressed through a self-study process such as that developed by The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE).

Self-study, as a form of assessment, relies on the professional judgment of both school-based and university-based partners. “The assessment process focuses attention on ‘what matters most’ to all teaching and learning organizations, that is, effective teaching and learning of its participants” (NCATE, 2001, p. v). Presenting high-quality, reliable evidence based on our assessment of what we know is important provides a deeper understanding of the accomplishments and outcomes of schooling than does assessment based solely on standardized test scores. The PDS self-study process is intended to ensure quality and accountability in schools and universities working in partnership and to provide results and substantive conclusions about how the partnership currently meets standards for effective collaboration. In our context, the Lehman PDS partnerships are using the PDS standards developed by NCATE to guide our assessment process.

This paper describes two PDS self studies that followed the NCATE process to examine the work of each partnership over several years. The investigation of the impact of PDS work presented in this article offers insights into the process of assessing school/university partnerships for both NCATE-accredited institutions and institutions that are accredited by other agencies and are committed to collaboration between schools/colleges of education and PreK-12 schools. In the following pages, we provide examples of how findings from self-studies inform the ways partners proceed in improving student learning, supporting practicing teachers, and preparing new teachers. We also examine how self-study affects the individuals from schools and universities who participate in the self-study process. While the findings are intimately connected to the institutional contexts in which the self-studies took place, the investigation into our process of self-study will help other PDSs develop mechanisms to ensure that evaluation through self-assessment is a beginning place from which to build leadership capacity. It also supports the argument that meaningful partnership work, like participating actively in a self-study process, has a positive impact on teaching both in schools and the university.

Following a brief description of the context of our PDS work, we outline the collaborative processes and stages of our PDS self-studies. We highlight conclusions reached and recommendations made as a result of the investigation. We then provide information regarding how individuals in different roles in the school and university not only contributed to

85

the process, but changed practice based on their involvement in and the findings of the self-studies.

Context of the PDS WorkThree institutions from an urban PDS network were involved in developing and

implementing the self-study process. In the fall of 1999, the Division of Education at Lehman embarked upon the creation of Professional Development School (PDS) partnerships with schools in the Bronx. To offer PDS partnerships a more central role in institutional reform, faculty in the Division designed a year-long selection process that would result in formal school/university partnerships. Each partnership would be governed by a three-year, renewable charter agreement.1 In the spring of 2000, Public School (PS) 304 and PS 291 were selected to become elementary PDS sites, and our collaboration began immediately in June 2000.

From the beginning of the partnership, the participants have been engaging in developing and implementing joint PDS goals. They have been documenting the relationship between their collaborative work and the learning community within the PDSs. Our collaborative approach includes: (1) the annual development and ongoing revision of PDS goals through a mutually designed structure for reflecting on work undertaken in each partnership each year, and (2) a formal self-study evaluation every third year using the NCATE PDS Standards and Elements (NCATE, 2001). This article reports on the results of the second self-study process conducted since the inception of the PDS network.

Participating InstitutionsLehman College is a public college in the City University of New York system and is

located in the Bronx. The two elementary schools partner with the Department of Early Childhood and Childhood Education (ECCE). The department offers both undergraduate and graduate early childhood and childhood programs both with monolingual and bilingual programs. PS 291 and PS 304 are urban public elementary schools located in the Bronx. PS 291 houses kindergarten through fourth grade, and PS 304 contains prekindergarten through fifth grade.

Each PDS has a school-based liaison and a university-based liaison. Two of the full-time ECCE faculty are designated as PDS liaisons (one assigned to each school) who receive reassigned time to spend a minimum of one day a week at a PDS site. An assistant principal at PS 304 and PS 291 serve as school-based liaisons. The liaisons are responsible for maintaining the day-to-day operation of the partnership and participating in research, documentation, and assessment of the PDSs. The school and university liaisons also serve on a PDS Executive Council. This Council, which meets monthly, is responsible for the governance of the PDSs, and includes the liaisons from all PDSs as well as key individuals in the administration of the Division of Education.

Preparation for a PDS Self-StudyThe heart of the self-study is the work of the PDS partnership. Creating a shared

understanding of the scope and impact of that work is an essential part of the assessment process. What makes a study of the work of the PDS different from other approaches to evaluation is that it assesses work across the functions of a PDS in an integrated way. It is undertaken

1 For a more detailed discussion of the selection process, see Dubetz, Lawrence and Gningue (2002) and Lawrence and Dubetz (2001).

86

collaboratively involving representative members of the partnership, and it incorporates and is driven by a strong commitment to inquiry.

Drawing upon a recommendation by NCATE to begin the self-study process by determining the purpose of the self-study in relation to the PDS Standards and Elements (NCATE, 2001), members of the PDS Executive Council met to discuss what is at the heart of our PDS work. Based on this discussion, the Council identified two major inquiry strands for both PDSs that cut across the four functions of a PDS: preparing teachers, improving the instruction of school- and university-based faculty, engaging in collaborative inquiry, and improving student learning. While self-studies were undertaken separately at each school, the Council felt it was important that both PDSs examine the same broad questions that are central to and overarching of all our work together as school and university partners. We chose to examine two major foci of work in our PDSs that involve the student teaching experience and professional development of school- and university-based educators. The two inquiry strands investigated in both PDS self-studies were

1. The Student Teaching Experience: How do teacher candidates feel after their student teaching experiences at the PDS? How prepared are they to take over a classroom? Have our candidates improved or had an impact on student learning through student teaching and/or fieldwork?

2. Professional Development: How has the Lehman PDS partnership via professional development (e.g., PDS conferences, opportunities for teachers to take courses at Lehman, opportunities to teach courses at Lehman, support from PDS liaisons, on-site fieldwork for college faculty, other professional development opportunities) influenced how teachers support and promote student learning?

Once the questions were decided, the school and college PDS liaisons began establishing PDS self-study steering committees at each school. The compositions of the steering committees at each school were similar but not identical. Each school created a steering committee that was representative of all of the active participants in the partnership, which included school- and university-based liaisons, college faculty, cooperating teachers, teacher candidates, union representatives, and student teaching supervisors.

Developing Instruments to Gather EvidenceThe first meeting of the self-study steering committees involved looking at the two

questions to be examined and to determine how to gather evidence around the two themes. In addition the schools created sub-questions specific to their work and settings to help them more specifically focus on the work they were trying to document.

Each school decided independently on how to collect the data and on who was to collect the data. At both schools surveys were conducted with school faculty, college faculty, and former student teachers. In addition, supervisors were surveyed at PS 291. The surveys included both scaled and open-ended questions. The surveys were similar for each school but different to allow for specific questions regarding the particular work of each partnership to be examined. At PS 291 the surveys were all administered electronically. At PS 304 the surveys were administered both through paper and e-mail. It was decided at PS 304 to also conduct a focus group with current and former cooperating teachers at the school. The focus group questions

87

were agreed upon by the steering committee and the group was led by a teacher on the steering committee.

Analyzing Data in a PDS Self-StudyThe data were analyzed by the members of the steering committees. Each school took a

somewhat different approach during a preliminary review of data. At PS 304, the steering committee met as a whole and reviewed summaries of all of the surveys. Together they analyzed responses to open ended questions and notes from the focus groups. At PS 291, the steering committee broke into two subcommittees for the first review of data. The subcommittee that focused on the questions about professional development reviewed summaries of results of school and faculty surveys, and the subcommittee that focused on the questions about student teaching reviewed summaries of the data from the surveys of cooperating teachers, supervisors, and graduates.

Once the preliminary data analysis was completed, the steering committees at each of the schools met to discuss the findings of the data collected in light of the elements for each of the NCATE 5 PDS standards: Learning Community; Accountability and Quality Assurance; Collaboration; Diversity and Equity; Structures, Resources and Roles2 . Using the data, the committees assessed to what degree the PDS work was addressing the standard and developed a tentative statement of standing for each standard. A statement of standing draws, in a holistic way, on the evidence and conclusions presented. Each steering committee then had to determine whether the PDS was beginning to meet the standard, developing toward meeting it, at standard, or was exceeding the standard (referred to as leading) by leading to systemic change. At PS 304, this process involved comparing the conclusions with the previous self-study and looking again at the evidence as a whole to determine a developmental level for the PDS for each standard and for the partnership as a whole3. Below is an example of a statement of standing for Standard I: Learning Community from PS 304.

Standard I: Learning Community -- Developing LevelPDS members (school staff, college faculty, and students) continue to collaborate

as a learning community. The PDS environment provides support for integrated learning experiences that focus on adult and children’s learning but these experiences occur unevenly. The school faculty participate in candidates’ preparation by serving as cooperating teachers. Inquiry and action research are being used in some classrooms, but there is not always a clear conception of the connections among the members of the PDS community. Some university faculty visit classrooms to observe and collect data. PDS partners can articulate the partnership’s vision and beliefs about learning. The PDS partnership has begun to realize its potential for changing school and university practice.

While formulating statements of standing using the PDS standards, recommendations were made for each standard and were based on conclusions made during the assessment. The recommendations specifically focus on work that the partnership sees as necessary to move to

2 For a detailed description o f each standard , see the Handbook for the Assessment of Professional Development Schools published by NCATE (2001).3 The chart of the developmental guidelines published by NCATE can be found at http://www.ncate.org/documents/pds/stand_1_dev_guide.pdf).

88

the next stage on the developmental guidelines and refer to specific aspects of identified PDS work. To illustrate, the following recommendation was created for Standard I: Learning Community as a result of this assessment process at PS 304.

Standard I: Learning Community -- Developing LevelPlans will be formulated to improve the annual PDS conference so as to enhance the PDS connections throughout the partnership. There are plans to enhance the field experience for student teachers as well as plans to involve more school and college faculty possibly through better planned orientations for both student teachers and cooperating teachers; study groups; and/or grants around action research in the classrooms. It is recommended that a list be generated from both college and school faculty on needs as well as expertise that can be shared. Plans are in place to hold a college course for credit on site at PS 304 next fall.

After the final statements of standing, conclusions, recommendations and developmental levels were determined, a summary of the findings and recommendations were then shared with the school and college faculty for revisions and comment. The plan that had been created to put some of the recommendations into place was highlighted at these meetings. There was also a solicitation of thoughts and ideas for how to plan for future implementations of practices to improve the student and adult learning in the partnership. The self-study findings and recommendations are what serve as the evidence for the basis for making changes in practice, allowing representatives of the participating institutions to decide together how to move forward.

Impact of the PDS Self-Study ProcessPDS self-studies have both institutional and personal consequences. In this section, we

offer examples of the impact of the PDS self-study process. Our discussion is organized around the functions of PDS work.

Preparing Effective TeachersThe self-study at PDS 291 offered important insights into how partners were serving as a

learning community (PDS Standard I) and collaborating (PDS Standard 3) to prepare new professionals for teaching. The results of surveys from those most close to this work, i.e., cooperating teachers, college supervisors and student teachers, showed that student teachers were having a positive impact on student learning. The types of impact included: (a) allowing for more one-on-one or small group interactions that facilitated a child’s learning of challenging concepts; (b) developing significant relationships with particular children that helped build children’s self esteem; and (c) some evidence that student teachers offered music, art, and academic strategies that the teacher might not otherwise be using. The self-study also revealed that there were areas in teacher preparation that the partners needed to collaboratively address more effectively. For example, while most program graduates who had done student teaching at the PDS reported they were prepared to teach English Language Learners (ELLs), cooperating teachers believed candidates were not adequately prepared by the end of student teaching. The lack of preparation in working with ELLs was also a concern of college preservice faculty. After the self-study, the PDS increased its involvement in organizing site based fieldwork embedded in methods courses where teacher candidates worked with small groups of ELLs, observing instruction in classrooms of effective teachers of ELLs, and meeting with school-based ESL

89

professionals. In addition, the student teaching experience for the candidates at PS 291 was modified to allow them to opt for a four week placement in a classroom with a large number of ELLs to develop differentiated instructional strategies if they are not already student teaching in a classroom with a large number of ELLs.

Finally, the PS 291 self-study demonstrated that partners need to collaborate even more to strengthen the student teaching experience by: (a) supporting continuity of people working with student teachers, e.g., having the same supervisors work with the same cooperating teachers from semester to semester; (b) structuring opportunities for cooperating teachers and supervisors to meet and talk over time; and (c) providing better mentoring for cooperating teachers on how to be effective mentors. The recommendations have led to the creation of several new structures including: (a) increasing communication/meetings between the college liaisons and cooperating teachers on a regular basis; (b) establishing a regular supervisor, who also attends meetings at the school with the liaisons and student teachers; and (c) establishing a support network of new cooperating teachers with experienced cooperating teachers.

Collaborative Inquiry into Student LearningAfter reviewing the survey and focus group data from PS 304, it became apparent that

teachers needed assistance using test data to drive instruction. As part of the discussion of the self-study results it was decided that an on-site course (at PS 304) would be offered where teachers would analyze test data and receive Lehman graduate credit using their tuition waivers received from hosting student teachers. The steering committee designed an educational research course which analyzed ELA (English Language Arts) test data and was taught by the Literacy Coach of PS 304. During the course, the teachers found that grade three through five students were getting similar questions wrong on the ELA and it was due to how questions were worded and deficiencies in vocabulary. They also found there was a drop in scores from grade 4 to grade 5 due to grammar. This was a huge discovery for the teachers and one they felt could be corrected in the classrooms easily. An advantage of the self-study was that it helped the school to bring forward the need to explore ways to teach formal standard written grammar mechanics in a more systematic manner and rethink test preparation through rewording questions and improving vocabulary. The school has since implemented a school-wide grammar curriculum and changed the phrasing used during everyday instruction and in test practice to address the deficiencies. As a result of this college course onsite at PS 304, which was conceived from the results of the self-study and created by the PDS partnership, school wide curriculum changes were implemented. The teachers note a distinct improvement in students’ use of written grammatical mechanics, and test scores for these students have risen. Using data to improve student learning is a current nation wide concern. However, teachers do not always know how to interpret or use data correctly. The results of the self-study created an opportunity for teachers to learn how to look at student data to set goals and drive instruction.

Professional Development of School and College FacultyA restructuring of the Annual PDS Conference was established as a result of the self-

studies. The PDS studies highlighted the need for more meaningful opportunities for college and school faculty to collaboratively explore problems in teaching and learning that were of interest to both groups. Following the self-studies, the format for the Annual PDS Conference, where all members of all PDS institutions are invited to participate in professional development, was restructured as a series of roundtables, where college and school faculty join together to explore

90

specific topics around a larger theme, e.g., assessing student learning, in a format that promotes meaningful discussion in a small group setting.

Participation on a Self-Study Steering CommitteeAt the personal level, the self-study process has influenced the work of the individuals

who participated in the process. In this section, we highlight its impact on a few members the self-study steering committees to illustrate the kinds of impact that participation in the process can have.

At the conclusion of the self-studies, steering committee members reflected on how their practice was informed by participation in the study, if at all. We found patterns in our experiences that are consistent with what others have reported about participation in PDS work (Harris, & van Tassell, 2005; Klinger, Ahwee, van Garderen, & Hernandez, 2004; Leonard, Lovelace-Taylor, Sanford-DeShields, & Spearman, 2004; Rice, 2002; Scheetz, Waters, Smeaton, & Lare , 2005; Siebert, 2005; Snow-Gerono, 2005; Teitel, 2001). Specifically three themes emerged regarding our participation: (1) Self-study work strengthened the commitment to partnership work; (2) The work led to changes in practice for preservice coursework and in elementary classrooms; and (3) The self-study work lead to professional growth. What follows are the stories of six of the steering committee members and insights on our participation on the process and changes in practice that led to improvement of instruction at both the elementary and college level.

Two of the members are based in the schools. Damaris Ramirez-Bello is a classroom teacher at PS 304 and has served as a cooperating teacher. She is a graduate of the Lehman College Graduate Childhood Education Program. She has hosted many student teachers as a cooperating teacher and led the self-study focus group with cooperating teachers at PS 304. Patty Vulaj, who is also a graduate of a Lehman College Graduate program, is an Assistant Principal at PS 291 and is the school-based PDS liaison.

Four of the members are based at the college and supervise student teachers at the PDS sites as part of their duties. Scott Wolfson is an adjunct instructor of education at Lehman College. Wolfson supervises student teachers, teaches math methods for both childhood and early childhood education in both graduate and undergraduate programs, and coordinated the graduate program for New York City Teaching Fellows and for Teach for America (TFA). Cecilia M. Espinosa is an assistant professor and supervises student teachers. During her first two years at Lehman College, she also served as the college PDS Liaison for PS 291. A large portion of her undergraduate literacy course has been taught at PS 291.

Nancy Dubetz and Alexandria Lawrence Ross are associate professors at Lehman and each is a college PDS liaison. In addition, both have experience as supervisors in the PDSs where they work. They served as chairs on their self-study steering committees.

Commitment to Partnership WorkAs Rice (2002) finds in her meta-ethnography on PDSs, the desire for collaboration on

both the part of the college and school must be strong for the PDS to thrive. As well, Snow-Gerono (2005) reports on the need for community in a PDS. Members of our self-study steering committees witnessed the need for continued collaboration but also as members of the integrated steering committee felt the deep commitment to collaboration that already exists in each partnership.

91

In her reflection, Patty Vulaj writes about how the commitment to partnership work helps to refocus the broad goals of the school.

The self-study work done by the committee helps us self reflect as a community on the work we are doing. This self reflection then helps us focus/re-focus our desired outcomes -- our outcomes always being centered around how we can better support our students. The coming together as a community helps us see things from different perspectives. Through these multiple lenses we then are able to set goals and expectations for ourselves. This is key since we all have different demands and expectations on a day to day basis.

Scott writes, As a member of the 291 PDS committee, I was asked for my input within the self-study. I was asked to look through the lens of my experience as a supervisor of student teachers at each of the standards, and through my experience, evaluate where we fit within the developmental guidelines. Importantly, I felt the process of the self-study was very inclusive. Each member of the team was given a rubric (developmental guidelines). As a team we read though each of the elements for all of the standards. Each of us was encouraged to state our opinions about where we felt the team fell within each of the elements of the standards. I feel this is important as this is not always the case when you are asked to participate on a committee. This committee did not feel hierarchical, each member’s thoughts and suggestions had equal weight.Alexandria’s experience on the steering committee and in the self-study process revealed

to her the need to more clearly communicate to the partnership about the PDS work and her own role as a liaison. Despite her physical presence at the school each week, there still seemed to be confusion on the part of the school faculty as to what the role of the liaison is. As well, there were many misconceptions around the selection and placement of cooperating teachers and student teachers which was the cause of some resentment. It quickly became clear that she had to adjust her role to include providing more upfront information about PDS related activities in the school. As a result, she has spoken at faculty meetings and sought out individuals who are not cooperating teachers to participate in the PDS in alternate ways, i.e. participating in an onsite course, teaching courses at the college as an adjunct, and presenting at conferences. In this way the circle of those involved in PDS work will widen and the scope and commitment to the partnership will increase.

Cecilia also felt that the self-study process was thorough, systematic and generative. This experience gave Cecilia a new lens to think about when planning her literacy undergraduate fall course at PS 291. She gained new insights into the importance of providing the Lehman students with opportunities to observe teachers working with second language learners at PS 291. In addition, because the results of the surveys revealed a need for Lehman students to develop deeper understandings about assessments utilized in schools, she planned to invite the Literacy Coach to talk with her students about the different ways in which teachers assess children’s reading development at PS 291. The participation in the self-study provided further evidence for Cecilia with regards to the need to offer her students more experiences to work weekly, over a span of time, with one student or a small group of students who are also learning English as a second language at PS 291. These deeper commitments became evident in large part because of her participation in the self-study.

Changes in Practice

92

Research studies on PDSs, such as Scheetz, Waters, Smeaton, and Lare, (2005) and Leonard, Lovelace-Taylor, Sanford-DeShields, and Spearman (2004), have made compelling arguments on how participation in a PDS can change and improve the education process. Our data confirms and extends the knowledge base with testimonies to how practice was changed in both the school and college.

Changes in Preservice Coursework. Damaris saw change in the preservice coursework take place immediately at PS 304. Based on our (self-study steering committee) findings from the teacher surveys, the cooperating teacher focus group, and the student teacher surveys, the steering committee met to come up with ways to improve the student teaching experience for both parties. For example, we came up with the idea of holding orientations for both cooperating teachers and student teachers before they begin so expectations can be communicated clearly and to both parties at once. This approach helps cut down on confusion and misconceptions.

Scott started to make changes in his preservice coursework based on the data analysis. Data indicated one of the concerns for our student teachers and their cooperating teachers was that the student teachers are often unfamiliar with some of the assessments and curriculum in use in the schools. Many of our students will end up both student teaching and teaching in New York City schools. As college instructors, we need to make these assessments explicit in our courses. For example, in mathematics New York City schools use Everyday Math. In his math methods course, Scott now incorporates some of the work from Everyday Math so students will have some familiarity. As a program coordinator, he works with adjunct faculty to incorporate this content into their syllabi.

Alexandria gained insight into some areas of deficiency in the College Graduate Childhood Education program as a result of participating in the steering committee. “Through the review of student teacher surveys we discovered that the student teachers, overall, rated the experience very highly. However, there were clearly three areas that received consistently low rankings: working with children with special needs, understanding formal assessments, and knowledge of state standards. The above three areas also received low ratings in program evaluations conducted by the College, and PS 304 feels they are school-wide weaknesses.” It was her responsibility as a liaison to bring this information to the college faculty to begin thinking of ways both at the program and student teaching and practicing teacher levels to improve these areas.

From her participation in this self-study, it became even clearer to Cecilia that to be truly prepared, Lehman students need to be in schools in the company of a variety of Lehman faculty. An assortment of methods courses needs to continue to be offered at the school campus, preferably during the school day, but if not, then after school. As professors, we need to discuss the types of practical experiences the students receive in each course we offer. Our purpose of these conversations should be to ensure that we offer the Lehman students both continuity of experience, while we also provide new engagements.

Changes in Elementary Classrooms. Damaris participated in the onsite educational research course that grew out of the self-study at PS 304 in the collaborative inquiry of the self-study process. It impacted her teaching directly. As part of the analysis of the data from the English Language Arts (ELA) tests, it was found that although grades three, four, and five spend a good deal of time on character study, about half the students in each third-grade class chose the wrong answer on character questions on the multiple-choice portion of the 2008 ELA. After

93

looking at the specific questions, Damaris saw that students were able to describe characters and how they changed throughout the story but were unable to draw conclusions about characters or describe their mood or motivations. She now spends less time on character traits in her classroom and more time on the areas where children had difficulty. As a result of the test analysis, she also began to word things differently in her teaching. For example, rather than asking students what the main idea of a passage is, she now says “what is this passage mostly about.” The test scores of these children improved the following year.

While reviewing the data during the PDS self-study process, Cecilia was reminded that both institutions have a lot to offer one another and thought about how that can provide ways to change practice in the future. The school, for example, offers Lehman students daily insights into what it means to teach in this era of accountability. The school can also offer insights into what it means to carve out spaces for a child to follow his/her interests and passions. Lehman students bring to the classroom their unique experiences growing up in an urban setting. The children at the schools share this experience with them. Cecilia commented,

The Lehman students also bring fresh ideas about ways to teach the different content areas. They can try these new methodologies in the classroom. Lehman professors can offer support through their areas of expertise. They can, for instance, support a teacher in figuring out how to create a more democratic classroom community. They can offer the school their understandings of developing curriculum that addresses the 21st Century Literacies. This teamwork can certainly lead to fascinating collaborative inquiry projects, where classroom teachers and college professors ask questions, engage in research, analyze their findings, present at professional conferences and publish their research stories for a larger audience. They can engage in studying a child over time. In other words, follow a child or a group of children over several years by developing child studies. Patty sees the changes on a broad scale and comments, Our self-study work always leads us to be honest with ourselves in looking at our strengths and weaknesses. Through our honesty and collaboration, we then are able to make appropriate changes and set new goals for ourselves. It is a learning and growing experience each and every time we come together to reflect and share our ideas. The changes we make are ways to better support our students.

Professional Growth A study in 2005 by Harris and van Tassell finds that 85% of practicing teachers report

learning innovative techniques from PDS participation. Both college and school faculty grew professionally as a result of working collaboratively on the self-studies in the PDS partnership.

As an instructor of methods classes, Scott saw how the statement of standing and the recommendations of the PDS had a strong influence on his own teaching.

I saw and heard first hand that our students need to have more opportunities to learn about classroom management techniques. As an instructor I have made an effort to become more explicit about management techniques within my modeling. Helping new teachers to predict student behaviors within their lesson planning provides them with practice to assist them before they move into student teaching. As part of their coursework, students within my class are now required to develop a management plan as part of each lesson. This may include simple management techniques such as a plan for the distribution of materials within the class or developing a specific behavior plan for an

94

individual child with particular behavioral needs. Additionally, I now require that my math methods students incorporate elements of the Everyday Math Program, the required program of the New York City schools, into their lessons.As a liaison, Alexandria has become mindful of how quickly misinformation can arise if

communication is not constant. As a result, she spends time with each of the cooperating teachers at the school discussing their roles and clarifying the expectations of the student teacher as well. She also spends time engaging teachers who are not cooperating teachers to involve them in PDS work in other ways.

Nancy learned about the complexities of the mentoring role of cooperating teachers and supervisors as a consequence of her participation on the self-study team. In looking at the data from the surveys with other members of the self-study committee and later reporting on the results of the self-study to a group of cooperating teachers on a professional development day, it became clear that the PS 291/Lehman collaboration had to include more effective mechanisms for supporting teachers in their role as mentors to student teachers. What has been learned has led to the creation of several new structures to meet that goal: (1) ensuring that the same supervisor works with the same cooperating teachers from semester to semester; (2) meeting with cooperating teachers regularly to discuss expectations; (3) setting up an in-school network between first time cooperating teachers and experienced cooperating teachers so the that first year teachers know who they can talk with about student teaching questions in addition to the liaisons; (4) using feedback from regularly scheduled meetings between the student teacher and the university-based liaison to provide a written update every third week to all cooperating teachers regarding the student teaching experience. As Nancy engages in this work, her interactions with cooperating teachers are more focused and purposeful.

Patty agrees with Nancy’s thoughts on mentoring at PS 291:Through our self-study work, we have found a need to better support our cooperating

teachers. The support of our cooperating teachers in turn will affect the support they can provide to the student teachers, which in turn will affect the support a student teacher will be able to provide to the students. Proper and best support to our students is always our number one goal.

Cecilia’s roles as PDS liaison and student teacher supervisor have allowed her to gain deep insights and understandings about the complexity of our PDS relationship. Participating in this self-study confirmed Cecilia’s beliefs that throughout their teacher preparation Lehman prospective teachers need multiple opportunities to observe teachers engaging second-language learners in deep and rich content. They need to experience educational settings were parents’ voices are heard. In particular, they need experiences in settings where the voices of immigrant parents are also part of the conversation. She was reminded that the Lehman students also need ample opportunities to engage in meaningful activities with second-language learners under the guidance of a Lehman faculty member. In addition, Lehman students need opportunities to experience rich educational opportunities for children with special needs.

This self-study also strengthened her belief that it matters that as faculty members from two different institutions we continue to engage in ongoing dialogue. This dialogue not only helps us understand our realities but helps us enrich and expand possibilities for all the children at the school and also for our prospective teachers.

Conclusion

95

Conducting the self-studies was a collaborative effort that aimed to promote self-development and reflection. The implementation of the follow-up to the studies needs to be carefully planned so all of the benefits of the study can be reaped. The conclusions and recommendations of the studies are powerful because they come from within the partnership. Simultaneously, they are closely tied to a set of nationally recognized standards, the NCATE PDS Standards (NCATE 2001). The conclusions, recommendations, and impact of the self-studies also extend the literature base on PDSs. Our work supports the argument that PDSs improve the education process for students, preservice teachers, practicing teachers, and university faculty (Castle et al., 2006; Dangel et al., 2009; Harris & van Tassel, 2005; Leonard et al., 2004; Scheetz, Waters, Smeaton, & Lare, 2005; Siebert; 2005). Our work specifically identifies changes and improvements in practice.

In addition to growing and developing the partnerships through the self-study, our investigation revealed how the process had a direct impact on both college and school curriculum. Individuals on the self-study steering committees also discuss how powerful changes were made to their own classroom teaching as a result of being involved in the studies. Without doubt, the experience has enriched their practices as teachers and educators. The outcomes of these self-studies offer great potential to the participating institutions in that the action plans created as a result of the recommendations have the capability of impacting change at both the curricular and institutional level.

ReferencesAbdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Professional development schools: Weighing the evidence. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Breault, R., & Breault D. (2003, April). Warrantability and meaningfulness in PDS research: A

content analysis. Unpublished paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Chicago.

Castle, S., Fox, R., & O’Hanlan-Souder, K. (2006). Do professional development schools (PDSs) make a difference? A comparative study of PDS and non-PDS teacher candidates. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 65-80.

Chance, L. (Ed.) (2000). Professional development schools: Combining school improvement with teacher preparation. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Dangel, J. R., Dooley, C. M., Swars, S. L., Truscott, D., Smith, S. Z., & Williams, B. (2009). Professional development schools: A study of change from the university perspective. Action in Teacher Education, 30(4), 3-17.

Dubetz, N. E., Lawrence, A., & Gningue, S. (2002). Formalizing a process for identifying urban PDS partnerships. Issues in Teacher Education, 11(2), 17-30.

Harris, M., & van Tassell, F. (2005). The professional development school as a learning organization. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(2), 179-194.

Houston, W. R., Hollis, L. Y., Clay, D., Ligons, C. M., & Roff, L. (1999). Effects of collaboration on urban teacher education programs and professional development schools. In D. M. Byrd & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Research on professional development schools, teacher education yearbook VII (pp. 6-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Klinger, J., Ahwee, S., van Garderen, D., & Hernandez, C. (2004). Closing the gap:Enhancing student outcomes in an urban professional development school. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(3), 292-30.

Lawrence, A. & Dubetz, N. (2001). An urban collaboration: Improving student learning through a professional development network. Action in Teacher Education 22(4), 1-14.

96

Leonard, J., Lovelace-Taylor, K., Sanford-DeShields, J., & Spearman, P. (2004). Professional development schools revisited: Reform, authentic partnerships, and new visions. Urban Education, 39(5), 561-583

Levine, M. (1997). Can professional development schools help us achieve what matters most? Action in Teacher Education, 19(2), 63-73.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2001). Handbook for the assessment of professional development schools. Washington, DC: Author.

Norman, P. J. (2005). When a PDS isn’t working: Confronting the question of pulling out. Action in Teacher Education, 27(4), 35-44.

Rice, E. (2002). The collaboration process in professional development schools: Results of a meta-ethnography, 1990-1998. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 55-67.

Scheetz, J., Waters, F., Smeaton, P. & Lare, D. (2005). Mentoring in a PDS program: What’s in it for me? Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(1), 33-37.

Siebert, C. (2005). Promoting preservice teachers’ success in classroom management by leveraging a local union’s resources: A professional development school initiative. Education, 125(3), 385.

Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2005). Professional development in a culture of inquiry: PDS teachers identify the benefits of professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of research and Studies, 21(3), 241-256.

Teitel, L. (2001). How professional development schools make a difference: A review of the research. Washington DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Author BiographiesAlexandria Lawrence Ross, Ed.D. is Associate Professor in the Department of Early Childhood and Childhood Education at Lehman College, City University of New York. Her research interests are in the areas of school-university collaborations and teacher preparation. Email: Alexandria.Ross@Lehman.cuny.edu

Nancy Dubetz, Ed.D., is Associate Professor of Early Childhood and Childhood Education at Lehman College, City University of New York. Her research focuses on partnering with educators and schools to develop effective programs for English learners. Email: nancy.dubetz@lehman.cuny.edu

Cecilia M. Espinosa, PhD., is Assistant Professor of Education at Lehman College, City University of New York. Her research interests include: collaborative research as a way to inform teacher education pedagogy, biliteracy, literacy, and teacher research. Email: cecilia.espinosa@lehman.cuny.edu

Scott Wolfson, Ed.D., is an adjunct Professor of Education at Lehman College in the Bronx, New York. His research interests include teacher preparation programs including alternative certification programs and teacher preparation in mathematics. Email: scott.wolfson@lehman.cuny.edu

Damaris Ramirez-Bello earned her Master's degree at Lehman College, City University of New York and serves as a cooperating teacher. She is currently an elementary teacher at PS 304 Early

97

Childhood Lab School, Bronx, New York. She is continuing her studies in Educational Research. Email: DRamirezBello@schools.nyc.gov

Pashka Vulaj is an assistant principal at Public School 291 in the Bronx, New York. She has served as a school-based PDS liaison for the Lehman College PDS network for ten years. She has also served as a cooperating teacher and an adjunct faculty member at Lehman College. Email: pvulaj@schools.nyc.gov

98

Start new page

Sharing Perspectives

Numbers Can Be Hazardous to Your Health:Using Boxplots to Monitor Collaborative Assessment Data

Brian D. BeitzelSUNY College at Oneonta

AbstractSharing and discussing assessment data with colleagues yields valuable insights beyond

what can be accomplished individually. When reviewing summary quantitative data, one must be careful to identify those distributions of data that are not normally distributed. Examples of non-normal distributions include many classroom-based assessments as well as state-mandated teacher-licensing examination scores for candidates from any single institution. Boxplots are an efficient way of graphically representing any distribution of scores, but they are especially helpful for depicting non-normal distributions. This article explains how to construct and interpret boxplots to aid the collaborative process of monitoring the outcomes of assessments that are key indicators of program quality.

***

Imagine you are one of several faculty members who teaches courses in a teacher-education program. Over the years, you have improved your courses through carefully examining your assessment data from your students’ examinations, papers, field work, and so forth. Thus, when your academic unit is gathering data for accreditation, it comes as a surprise that the aggregate data from your colleagues are quite different from your data for the same course assessments. After some uncomfortable discussions, you find out that your colleagues have applied different criteria to these assessments than you have. Your assumptions about what was commonly agreed upon within these assessments turned out to be mistaken.

Now, imagine another scenario in which you have just made the startling discovery that a sizable proportion of teacher candidates in your program are achieving licensure test scores below the required minimum for program accreditation. Because the success of your candidates on this test is critical for your program to maintain its accreditation, over the last several years you have been carefully reviewing the average performance of your students. Their scores have always averaged modestly higher than the passing score. Thus, the unexpected news that not enough of your students are passing the test comes as a complete surprise. It turns out that you have been monitoring the wrong statistics.

The purpose of this article is twofold. I first wish to argue that a collaborative approach to data collection and analysis—especially as it relates to accreditation—is superior to the situation in which faculty members arrive at data-based conclusions about their own courses in

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 5, Number 1 Fall/Winter 2010 XX

99

Running head from here to end of article should be Beitzelisolation. My second purpose is to describe an easy method of visually tracking the performance of teacher candidates on key assessments critical for accreditation—an approach that can stimulate and inform faculty collaboration. In this regard, I will discuss why it is important not to depend on the most commonly reported statistics (mean and standard deviation) to measure educational outcomes. And, I will show how a visual display known as the boxplot is superior to other methods of monitoring assessment results when accreditation is at stake.

The Case for CollaborationThe specific type of collaboration I wish to advocate most is that of open, honest

discussions of assessment data for the purpose of programmatic improvement (cf. DuFour, 2004; Good & Jackson, 2008; Kwok, Ma, Vogel, & Zhou, 2001). If done well, these discussions should lead to program accreditation. The effectiveness of such discussions depends, in part, upon each faculty member having submitted course-related assessment data to a centralized database. This does not presume that all faculty members can view each other’s data, but rather that summaries of data for relevant key assessments are available to program faculty for analysis. The success of these discussions depends also, of course, upon the participating faculty members’ willingness to set aside their territorial concerns and personal investments to examine the data as objectively as possible and subsequently to agree to curricular modifications when the data strongly suggest a need for such changes.

Without a centralized database such discussions would be, at best, ill informed. Ongoing monitoring of aggregated assessment results leads to identification of possible weaknesses in the program under discussion; vigilant faculty may also notice conceptual gaps in the curriculum or potential programmatic improvements. In addition, a bird’s-eye view of program data gives both faculty and administrators some idea of where the program stands when accreditation reviews are approaching.

Speaking of program accreditation, another compelling argument for submitting assessment data to a centralized database is that accrediting bodies inspect only the aggregate data for any given assessment. Consequently, the overall program will be judged and accreditation awarded on the basis of the aggregate data and not any single faculty member’s data. Thus, centralizing assessment data is clearly an expedient plan as a preparatory step to both collaborative faculty discussions and program accreditation review.

Another advantage of this process alluded to earlier is that faculty members can see whether their assessment results are in line with the aggregate data for that course. This provides a rough estimate of whether one is not demanding enough of students or is holding students to a much higher standard than other faculty members. Such informal comparisons on the part of a faculty member can stimulate a reflective process that could result in further collaborative efforts making progress toward common course objectives and assessments. This increased uniformity across multiple sections of the same course helps to ensure that students taking any given course have similar experiences and are evaluated in an equivalent manner, regardless of instructor characteristics.

The Division of Education at my institution, the State University of New York College at Oneonta, has established a centralized database through which individual faculty members submit course-related data for aggregate analysis. This database allows quick summarization of assessment data for each major, facilitating thorough program reviews by our program

100

assessment committee. Such comprehensive reporting—and the insights gained therein—would not be possible without the collaboration of our program faculty.

The Case for Careful Data MonitoringLike hundreds of teacher-education programs nationwide, the education programs at my

institution are accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (hereafter, NCATE). NCATE (2008, Standard 1) defines as “unacceptable” the situation in which fewer than 80% of program completers pass state-mandated content examinations. The New York State Department of Education also requires that teacher-preparation programs maintain at least an 80% pass rate on state licensure examinations, regardless of the accrediting body. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2006), 34 states have established minimum pass rates on licensure examinations for teacher-preparation programs. Therefore, to remain in good standing with our accrediting organization and the State of New York, at least 80% of the teacher candidates graduating from our programs must pass the three New York State Teacher Certification Examinations. Two of these tests (the Liberal Arts and Sciences Test [LAST] and the Assessment of Teaching Skills-Written [ATS-W]) have posed no great difficulty for teacher candidates. Statewide, the pass rate was 99% for the LAST and 100% for the ATS-W for individuals who completed a teacher-preparation program in 2007-2008 (New York State Education Department, 2008). The third licensure examination in our state is the Content Specialty Test (CST), which examines different material for each academic major. Pass-rate data from 2007-2008 graduates illustrate that the various CSTs pose greater challenges statewide than either the LAST or the ATS-W, and several smaller institutions struggle to achieve a pass rate greater than 80% (New York State Education Department, 2008). Because an institution’s accreditation status can rise or fall on the basis of the results of these examinations, they have become high-stakes tests not only for the candidates seeking to be licensed but also for the institutions that train them.

Why Numbers Can MisleadClearly, the most popular pair of statistics to describe any distribution of data is the mean

and the standard deviation. If one knows that the data are normally distributed, the use of these two metrics is not problematic. However, some datasets—such as licensure exam scores for any single institution—could very reasonably be expected not to be normal. Would anyone really expect that after four years of training at a highly selective, academically rigorous institution, only a very small number of graduates would achieve that school’s high scores on a licensure test? At my institution, the distribution for most of our content-based licensure tests, even spanning a three-year period, is decidedly not normal. These data diverge from normal in different ways—some are bimodal, others are considerably negatively skewed. Thus, describing these data using only means and standard deviations can be very misleading.

To illustrate (a) the importance of identifying those distributions of data that are non-normal and (b) one simple way to detect major departures from normality, I generated three different distributions of data to represent scores on a teacher-licensure examination. Because in our state the CST poses the greatest challenge for students in comparison to the other two state licensure tests, these sample data will represent a hypothetical institution’s scores for three different CSTs: English, Biology, and Mathematics. The data are summarized in Table 1. No, it is not a misprint—the means and standard deviations, rounded to the nearest tenth, are identical.

101

Table 1Hypothetical CST Results

Testa Mean Standard DeviationEnglish 226.9 20.4Biology 226.9 20.4Mathematics 226.9 20.4a For all tests, N = 100.

A program director or an administrator who is looking at the means and standard deviations of these three examinations might have a false sense of confidence since students, on average, performed several points above the required passing score of 220 on all three tests. Furthermore, a standard bar graph yields a similar conclusion, even when error bars are shown (see Figure 1). What is there to worry about?

Figure 1. A bar graph of the data in Table 1 (Error bars represent standard deviations.)

Actually, there is plenty to worry about! Because, as claimed earlier, these distributions can often be non-normal, more information is needed before one can arrive at an accurate understanding of these data. Both Table 1 and Figure 1 give no impression of any major differences in these three results, yet English and Mathematics are in trouble with respect to the 80% criterion. Only Biology is meeting the mark: the pass rate for the English CST is 70%, the pass rate for the Biology CST is 82%, and the pass rate for the Mathematics CST is 62%. If the NCATE team is in town, the pass rates are all that matters. However, if the next accreditation visit is a few years away, there is still time to make some programmatic adjustments to strengthen the preparation of candidates before “Judgment Day.” In the latter case, pass rates do not provide all of the information necessary to be confident that one’s teacher candidates are sufficiently well prepared for these examinations. The Biology CST, for example, might be barely making the cutoff this year (with a considerable number of the students scoring exactly at, or slightly above, the passing score) and could fail to meet the criterion during the upcoming period examined by NCATE. A better and more transparent method of monitoring results is needed.

102

Boxplots to the RescueKnowing that numbers are not always the clearest way to communicate information, John

Tukey (1977, p. 39) introduced the concept of boxplots (which he referred to as “box-and-whisker plots”) to visually represent a distribution of data. Boxplots depict five metrics simultaneously, compared with just one or two metrics (mean and standard deviation) often seen in a bar graph. More important than the number of metrics, though, is the information they represent (see Lane & Sándor, 2009, for a more elaborate argument on this point).

Figure 2 shows a boxplot of the same data as in Table 1 and Figure 1. The bottom of each shaded “box” is drawn at the 25th percentile and the top of the box is drawn at the 75th percentile; hence, the box itself represents the middle 50% of the distribution. The heavy line through the box is drawn at the median (the 50th percentile). The extreme ends of the “whiskers” represent the lowest value and the highest value observed in the distribution. (Note: There are other metrics sometimes used to determine the length of the whiskers; see “Box plot,” 2009, for details.)

English Biology Mathematics

180

200

220

240

260

280

Mea

n S

cale

d S

core

Figure 2. A boxplot of the data in Table 1

From Figure 2, one can now clearly see that these three distributions are not as similar as they appeared in Table 1 and Figure 1. The horizontal dotted line at the passing score of 220 allows us to visually inspect how much of the distribution lies above the passing score. To meet the NCATE standard, there must be 80% of the distribution on or above this dotted line (i.e., at least 80% of candidates must score at or higher than the passing score). Or, stated another way, there must be no more than 20% of the distribution below the dotted line (i.e., there must be fewer than 20% of candidates who fail the exam). Because the bottom boundary of each box marks the point below which 25% of that distribution falls, to meet the NCATE criterion at least 5% of the distribution must lie between the bottom of the box and the passing score. In other

103

words, if the shaded box meets or crosses below the dotted line, one can be certain that the NCATE board will have some very unpleasant words to say. Now we can see why the English and Mathematics passing rates are not meeting the criterion: more than 25% of the scores on both of those tests are below 220.

The Biology boxplot should bring one to the edge of one’s seat; pins and needles should begin to be felt. Recall that NCATE’s criterion is for no more than 20% of the scores to be below the passing score; therefore, the critical factor is exactly where the 20th percentile falls. We know that in the best case scenario for these Biology data, the 20th percentile cannot be much above 220 because the 25th percentile (the bottom of the box) is not much above 220. Is there at least 5% of the distribution between the bottom of the box and the dotted line? Unfortunately, a boxplot cannot settle this question; we must resort to other tools.

With the suspense heavy in the air, one can open Microsoft Excel and use the PERCENTILE function to determine exactly where the 20th percentile falls. (Brief technical tutorial: if the scores being examined are in Column A from Row 2 through Row 101, use the formula “=PERCENTILE(A2:A101, 0.2)” [without the quotes].) Upon executing this function for the Biology data, we find the result to be 222; therefore, we can breathe a sigh of relief. Less than 20% of the scores are below 220.

One final note about such close calls: if the 20th percentile calculated by Excel falls within two or three points in either direction of the passing score, it’s time to use an airtight method. Sort the test scores from the least to the greatest, and make sure that at least 80% of the scores are 220 or higher. In my sample dataset, 82 out of 100 scores were at or above 220, confirming the conclusion that Biology has barely made the grade.

If these data were to be submitted for an institution’s formal NCATE review, all is well with Biology; the criterion has been met. However, the fact that the 20th percentile fell so close to the passing score should be a warning that the next round of test results may not yield the same result. If another batch of results will arrive before NCATE beckons for data, one should be concerned that the proportion of students who pass this test might fluctuate to a less fortunate outcome.

That’s Nice, But How Can I Do It?Unfortunately, Microsoft Excel does not currently have a built-in charting function for

boxplots. Happily, though, there is a free alternative that is not very difficult to implement: the open-source statistical software package R (R Development Core Team, 2010), with its stunning graphics capabilities. To obtain a copy of this free software, visit http://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/ (Mac users, go to http://cran.r-project.org/bin/macosx/) and download the latest version to your desktop, then double-click on it to install. (It is advisable to accept all the default values offered to you during installation unless you know what you are doing.)

Before you can create a boxplot in R, you will need to prepare your data. The easiest way to do this is by organizing it in Microsoft Excel. Use one column in Excel for each assessment that you wish to plot; Row 1 of each column should contain a short text label that represents the data in that column (e.g., “English CST”). After the data file is ready, use the Save As command and be sure to specify the file type as “CSV (Comma delimited) (*.csv).”

Now start the R software, and you will be presented with a text window called a console. All of your commands creating the boxplot will be typed into this console. Your first duty is to

104

load your data into R, so begin by typing the following, exactly as shown here, then press the Enter key.

dataset <- read.csv(file.choose())

A file-picker dialog will appear, prompting you to select the CSV file that you just exported from Excel. Unless you see an error message in the console, your data are loaded into R and are awaiting further instructions.

At last, it’s time to issue the command for the boxplot itself. There are many options to customize your boxplot (I did hint earlier that R has extremely powerful graphics functions), but let’s stick to basics to begin.

boxplot(dataset, range=0)

After typing in the above command, press the Enter key and the boxplot will appear. You can right-click on the boxplot and copy it to your clipboard for pasting into another document if you wish. If you would like to customize the boxplot, any or all of the following arguments—separated by commas—can be added before the closing parenthesis of the above command to (a) provide a label for the Y axis, (b) shade the boxes gray, and (c) make the box width a little narrower, respectively.

ylab=“Mean Scaled Score”, col=“gray”, boxwex=.3

It’s easiest to use the up-arrow key on your keyboard to recall the previous command, then cursor left to the point just before the closing parenthesis, insert a comma, then add any new arguments desired from the list above, making sure that all arguments in the entire command are separated by commas.

The final enhancement is drawing a dotted line through the graph at the CST passing score of 220. This permits easier visual inspection of how close the data fall to the criterion value. The following command (executed separately from the boxplot command) will draw a red, dotted line across the currently drawn graph at the value 220.

abline(h=220, lty=“dotted”, col=“red”)

To ask R for an approximation of the 20th percentile of the Biology data, first make sure that you know what column names R is using for your data.

colnames(dataset)

Locate the appropriate column name from your output in the console (here, it’s “Biology”) and issue this command:

quantile(dataset$Biology, probs=.2)

Note the dollar sign separating the name of the dataset and the specific column name that you wish to obtain the percentile for. The percentile will be displayed in the console after you press the Enter key. Be aware that there are different ways to calculate a percentile (Frigge, Hoaglin,

105

& Iglewicz, 1989), but this will get you close enough to know whether or not you need to make an appointment with a crisis counselor.

If you’re planning to repeat the same analysis in the future (presumably with an updated data file), you can save your customized commands in a script file so that you don’t need to re-type them each time you run the analysis. To create a custom script, go to the File menu in R and choose “New script”; the R Editor will open and you can type all of your commands into the editor and then save your script by going back to the File menu and choosing “Save as....” When you wish to re-run the analysis, simply open R, go to the File menu and choose “Open script,” browse to your script and click the button labeled Open; after the script appears, go to the Edit menu and choose “Run all.” Point to your CSV file when prompted, and voilà! Your customized boxplot will appear almost before you can blink.

If you wish to learn more about R, you could start by going to the Help menu in R, then selecting “Manuals (in PDF)” and then “An Introduction to R.” Documentation for R has been rather limited but is now improving substantially, both on the Web and through published books. Newcomers to the world of R will find the scope of its functionality to be astonishingly deep and broad, even if somewhat esoteric. And after seeing the wide range and depth of R’s features, one must take a moment to marvel at the price: free!

Several faculty members collaboratively monitoring data from a centralized database can reach a more illuminating conclusion than is possible for a single faculty member working alone. This increased collaboration among faculty members teaching the same course can lead to greater improvements in the course and, consequently, the academic program. Additionally, if these aggregate data are reviewed periodically using sound statistical techniques that are capable of highlighting critical dimensions of the data (such as non-normality), there should be no uncomfortable surprises in store when it comes time to write that accreditation report.

ReferencesBox plot. (2009). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_plotDuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational Leadership,

61(8), 6-11.Frigge, M., Hoaglin, D. C., & Iglewicz, B. (1989). Some implementations of the boxplot. The

American Statistician, 43, 50-54.Good, R., & Jackson, S. H. (2008). Using a collaborative model to analyze the impact of a data

analysis process to improve instruction: A three year study. Retrieved December 15, 2009, from http://cnx.org/content/m15857/1.1/

Kwok, R. C. W., Ma, J., Vogel, D., & Zhou, D. (2001). Collaborative assessment in education: An application of a fuzzy GSS. Information & Management, 39, 243-253.

Lane, D. M., & Sándor, A. (2009). Designing better graphs by including distributional information and integrating words, numbers, and images. Psychological Methods, 14, 239-257.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, DC: Author.

New York State Education Department, Office of College and University Evaluation. (2008). New York State teacher certification examinations (NYSTCE) pass rate data. Albany, NY: Author.

106

R Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2006). The secretary’s fifth

annual report on teacher quality: A highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Washington, DC: Author.

Author BiographyBrian D. Beitzel, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Educational Psychology at SUNY Oneonta in Oneonta, New York. His research interests include cognitive and instructional design issues related to learning from video and external mathematical representations. E-mail: beitzebd@oneonta.edu

107

Start new page here Public Exhibition of Understanding: A Perspective for Teacher Education

Paul J. VermetteNiagara University, New York

Karrie A. JonesTapestry High School, Buffalo, New York

Jennifer L. JonesEmmet Belknap Middle School, Lockport, New York

Donna Kester-PhillipsNiagara University, New York

AbstractAs teacher colleges look to incorporate authentic assessments of understanding into their

teacher education programs, public exhibitions of understanding have increased in status and popularity (Davidson, 2009; Rennert-Ariev, 2005). In seeking to provide a rationale, theoretical basis, and case study of effective public exhibitions of understanding in action, this article looks to Niagara University, a small, private college in Western New York, and the model it has developed for use with preservice teachers. By considering the Niagara University model and its theoretical underpinnings, this article provides an implementation model for using public exhibitions as a means for incorporating authentic assessments of understanding in teacher education settings.

***

BackgroundIn the mid-1990s, thinking about learning moved decidedly away from a century of

behaviorism towards student demonstration of understanding (Gardner, 1985; Perkins & Blythe, 1994). Taking the form of portfolio presentations, showcases, journey sharing opportunities, or simply demonstrations, these public exhibitions went beyond old-fashioned show and tell, science fairs, and debates to encourage students to thoughtfully integrate their ideas into public reflection.

In this article we use the term public exhibition to refer to the semi-formal, public demonstration of knowledge and experiences gained throughout a course or program. Though there is relatively little research focused specifically on the concept of public exhibition, the authors of this article assert there are a number of key thinkers who may have sparked this new understanding of performance for the assessment and extension of learning. These key thinkers are David Perkins, Howard Gardner, Donald Schon, Deborah Meier, Gloria Ladson-Billings,

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 5, Number 1 Fall/Winter 2010 XX

108

Running head from here to end of article should be Vermette, Jones, Jones, and Kester-Phillips David and Roger Johnson, Grant Wiggins, Jay McTighe, and Robert Sternberg. In this article, through the careful analysis of their research, a rationale for using public exhibition in teacher education programs will be constructed and the context for consideration of public exhibitions at Niagara University will be established. First, we will take a brief look at the available literature base.

Review of Research One of the most influential educational theorists, who continues to play a tremendous role

in our understanding of cognition is David Perkins. In his widely respected volume, edited by Wiske (1998), he stated that understanding can be represented by performance. This means that true understanding is best shown when a student does something with his or her new, internally created, conceptual knowledge. Best thought of as “intentional transfer,” his notion demands that students show novel application of new ideas in public settings (Perkins, 2009, p.119).

Known for his enormous contributions to American education, Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory (1993, 1999) challenged the notion that knowledge is static and inert. By contradicting decades of educational thought, Gardner presented a model of teaching and learning that saw personal interaction, intrapersonal reflection, and presentations including music, art or dance as highly desirable formats for assessment. Sparking a revision of how understanding should be demonstrated, Gardner continues to add validity to the use of personally meaningful visible and audible assessments.

Since the publication of his 1983 article, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Donald Schon has captivated educators with his suggestion that deep reflection is the essence of effort by successful professionals. By challenging educators to reconsider the role technical knowledge played in their day-to-day practice and focus more on teacher decision making and problem solving, Schon furthered the notion of progressive growth and continuous improvement. This notion transferred superbly to a field seeking authentic demonstrations of understanding for students. Many teachers found public demonstrations of understanding encapsulated the same essence when applied to student growth over time.

It is also worth noting that Schon’s commitment to reflection is deeply tied to the growth of journaling (and journal sharing) as educational practice. Though seemingly a private matter, journaling can also be used as a vehicle for public exhibition of understanding in the classroom. For many students, journaling sets the stage for the learner to have something personal, thoughtful, and carefully crafted to share with others. This sharing easily takes form in a public exhibition of understanding or an opportunity to receive and reflect on meaningful, personalized feedback on their thinking from others.

Deborah Meier brought portfolio usage to the forefront of urban educators’ thinking when she described the impact of students’ portfolio presentations in her 1995 book, The Power of Their Ideas. Meier described the tremendous impact public sharing of students’ personal investigations had on student motivation, self-confidence and quality of work at Central Park East. By sharing insight into how this public exhibition was accomplished and its effects on student achievement, Meier provided both the research and inspiration to other urban educators.

Though seemingly diverse, Gloria Ladson-Billings (2009) and cooperative learning theorists David and Roger Johnson (1994, 2009) have long called for students to solve meaningful problems in collaboration with others, demonstrating their understanding of key

109

concepts through product creation, not test taking. Their research on culturally relevant teaching and cooperative learning has transformed schooling from a private, solitary experience to a noisy, vibrant, public experience. It is by operationalizing their ideas that teachers are beginning to realize that talking to classmates during instruction helps student make the leap to talk to other people after instruction.

As a side note, though public exhibitions can be utilized as an elaborate summative assessment, often the most powerful public exhibitions take place as part of instruction as students with diverse ideas, experiences, and opinions share information and develop a new, deeper understanding. To that end, however, Popham (2007) reminds us that an effective assessment is a learning experience. Concept attainment theory (Bruner, Goodnow, & Austin, 1956) suggests that students deepen conceptual understanding with every use of the concept. Literally, every time students meaningfully think about an important concept, they understand it more deeply. (For further discussion of developing students’ conceptual understanding in teacher education at Niagara University, see Jones, Jones & Vermette, 2008.)

With their innovative model of unit design and curricular structure, Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe have shaped the way educators think about authentic education. Their Understanding by Design model clearly supports public sharing of ideas. Their key idea, the Six Facets of Understanding, provides a solid structure for the design of assessments (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). These six facets: explain, interpret, apply, provide perspective, show empathy, and metacognitive reflection provide a template to help students and public exhibition attendees initiate verbal interaction in a public forum.

Finally, Robert Sternberg (1996), like Howard Gardner, was a theorist who saw intelligence differently than the intelligence quotient (IQ) specialists of the previous 100 years. He recognized intelligence as not a single, fixed entity but a variety of important abilities that can be improved with learning experiences. His triarchic theory suggested that knowledge in use was a meaningful way to observe and assess understanding.

To extend our discussion of Sternberg’s theory, it should be acknowledged that teachers for decades have proclaimed the benefits of hands-on learning. This idea has expanded in recent years to both “hands-on and minds-on,” to emphasize the thinking of students as they do their work (Vermette, 2009, p. 37). Sternberg’s theory suggests this powerful process would be enhanced by the public sharing of the “minds on” aspect. In this contemporary vein, it should be noted that Dweck’s (2006) call for the “growth mindset” (p.22) similarly does not overtly demand public sharing but certainly hints that such interactions foster deep thinking and help students recognize and appreciate their accomplishments.

Exhibitions at Niagara University TodayNow that we have considered the theoretical basis for this type of authentic assessment,

we will turn our attention to Niagara University where public exhibitions have evolved gradually over the past twelve years as the culminating assessment for numerous education courses. These courses are designed to help pre- service teachers develop and refine their teaching skills, knowledge and dispositions before embarking on student teaching. Through there have been changes made with each iteration and variations to meet the needs of the preservice teacher cohort, several characteristics of public exhibitions are worthy of consideration. The following characteristics should be noted.

Presence of Authentic Audience

110

In every instance, exhibition interactions are with the public and, therefore, are largely with strangers. The diversity encountered in this model requires (a) thoughtful transfer of conceptual knowledge (Jones, Jones, & Vermette, 2009; Perkins & Salomon, 1988; Perkins, 2009), (b) a keen set of dispositions (Hughes, Abbott-Campbell, & Williamson, 2001; Osguthorpe, 2008), and (c) an attitude of flexibility (Davies & Bryer, 2003). All of these characteristics have been deemed important for student teacher success (Levine, 2006).

Preservice teachers are required to bring a number of guests whom they will host for the event. With a keen commitment to Social and Emotional Learning (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2009), this is seen as helping them to develop the competencies of self-awareness and empathy. By placing an extra pressure on the individual to be responsible for his or her own interactions, while having to also care about a friend or family member’s comfort with the situation, there is a value-added sense of responsibility placed on the preservice teachers. Interestingly, by building a strong sense of community (Brendtro, Brokenleg, & Van Bockern, 2004; Glasser, 1998), the caring for guests becomes a shared responsibility for all preservice teachers, giving a welcoming atmosphere at the session.

Multiple Meaningful Discussions These public sessions call for multiple, personalized discussions. Therefore, they are not

presentations that can be scripted or rehearsed, but conversations that are real, thoughtful, and powerful (Vygotsky, 1962). Since the typical session might involve six or more different conversations with an audience that can range from parents to practitioners, building principals, or district superintendents, preservice teachers get a chance to reflect, alter, modify, or adjust their thinking based on the new insights they have gained from others. These discussions are not assessments in the traditional sense but learning experiences (Popham, 2007). It is for this reason exhibitions have proven to be a powerful and motivating experience in developing teacher candidates.

Extension of Professional Learning CommunitiesSince cooperative learning teams (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Vermette, 1998)

and professional learning communities (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005) are used extensively in class, the notion of sharing ideas with others is not new to these preservice teachers at the time of the exhibition. Instead, sharing one’s ideas with the public is a logical and meaningful extension of preservice teachers’ professional preparation (Perkins, 2009).

Some people liken this public interaction to a job interview, as it is a chance for the preservice teachers to practice their interview skills within a safe and communal setting. Our preservice teachers often create their exhibition station surrounded by their teammates for support and continuity. Therefore, although there is unfamiliarity that accompanies guest interactions, there is the comfort of being at this event with those who have been there throughout this experience.

Features of the SessionsIn an effort to assist those who may seek to host their own public exhibitions of learning,

the following section synthesizes the general characteristics of the sessions into four core features. These features can be replicated and modified to fit one’s own program-specific needs.

Student-Generated Demonstration of Understanding

111

Generally, every student in the course develops his or her station consisting of artifacts and props that are expected to enhance the display while showing their understanding of the course’s learning objectives. In the Methods of Secondary Education course, for example, learning objectives are written in the form of six long-term learning targets that preservice teachers “think with” throughout the semester. On the day of the public exhibition, preservice teachers must not only bring evidence they have accomplished each learning target, but must display their evidence in a way that will enhance their conversations. As is congruent with other learning experiences in the course, many students choose to work in their strongest intelligence (Gardner, 1999), creating everything from posters to songs, artistic representations to PowerPoint slideshows. The vast amount of choice and freedom embedded in this public exhibition allows for a great deal of ownership by the learners (Glasser, 1998; Perkins, 2009; Vermette, 2009).

Authentic, Diverse Audience Members The public attendees are usually given a set of suggested questions to help them feel

comfortable with this new and sometimes overwhelming learning experience. In the Methods of Secondary Education course these questions are tied to the six long-term learning targets and are written with varying levels of complexity to provide for differentiated levels of participant- attendee interaction. While securing an enormous number of fellow educators to serve as the audience is ideal, pre- service teachers also invite family, friends, associates and colleagues to join in this event and therefore questions with limited educational jargon are helpful. Also during this event, students take scheduled breaks from presenting to spend time viewing their classmates’ work. The resulting mix is a diverse representation of the larger culture beyond the higher education classroom.

Reflection on Both the Process and Product Beyond the creation of the display, assessment of learning takes several forms.

Preservice teachers are asked to draft a short article giving an overview of their preparations for this event and a reflection subsequent to this experience. The instructor does not use a formal rubric to assess the hundreds of conversations that take place (as they are too unpredictable for use as a summative assessment), but does review written comments from attendees. Also unlike a traditional “science fair” model there are no “winners”- each student’s public exhibition is unique and therefore not considered in relation to others. These public sessions are particularly powerful as they offer an incredible array of feedback to the learners (Donovan & Bransford, 2005). Grading is not necessarily feedback (Vermette, 2009); therefore, feedback is seen as a distinctive feature of this process.

“Breaking Bread” TogetherNoting the ritualistic importance of “breaking bread” with others as a means of

developing community, each preservice teacher is also asked to bring a dish to share with community members as the event is taking place. This not only makes this event a social gathering (as well as an assessment of learning), but it also gives the preservice teachers further responsibility for the planning of this event. By fostering student ownership in this way, the public exhibition is not viewed as an assignment but a familial celebration of communal accomplishments.

Conclusion

112

Public exhibitions of learning hold great promise in integrating active learning with authentic assessment. As highlighted by the work of Perkins (2009), Gardner (1993), and Schon (1983) (among others), holding public exhibitions is not only an opportunity to highlight student achievement but it gives students the opportunity to extend and refine their thinking in a meaningful way. For preservice teachers, this means the chance to continue preparing for the realities of the 21st-century classroom while reflecting on past accomplishments and future goals. By examining the rationale, theoretical basis, and implementation of the public exhibition at Niagara University, our hope is that the suggestions provided will serve as a starting place for others looking to facilitate showcases of student learning at other institutions of teacher education. Should you like further information about setting up a public exhibition, we would encourage you to contact one of the authors at the email addresses provided in the Author Biographies that follow.

ReferencesBrendtro, L. K., Brokenleg, M., & Van Bockern, S. (2002). Reclaiming youth at risk: Our hope

for the future. Revised Edition. National Educational Service.Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking, New York: John

Wiley.Davidson, J. (2009). Exhibitions: Connecting classroom assessment with culminating

demonstrations of mastery. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 36-43.Davies, M., & Bryer, F. (2003). Developing emotional competence in teacher education

students: The emotional intelligence agenda. In B. Bartlett, F. Bryer, & D. Roebuck (Eds.). Reimagining practice: Researching change. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Cognition, Language, and Special Education, Surfers Paradise, Volume 1 (pp. 136-148). Brisbane: Griffith University.

Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. (2005). How students learn history, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R. E., & DuFour, R. B. (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.Gardner, H. (1985). The mind's new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York:

Basic Books.Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York:

Simon & Schuster.Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. New York:

HarperCollins Publishers.Hughes, P., Abbott-Campbell, J., & Williamson, J. (2001). Teaching competencies in the

classroom: Deconstructing teacher experiences. Education Research and Perspectives, 28, 1-24.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38, 365- 379.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith K. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college:

113

What evidence is there that it works?, Change, 27-35.Jones, J. L., Jones, K. A., & Vermette, P. J. (2009). Teaching mathematics understandings for

transfer. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 28(2). Jones, K.A., Jones, J.L., & Vermette, P.J. (2008). Teachers thinking about student thinking: An

application of key concepts in teacher education. Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 114-117.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: Education Schools Project. Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in

Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press.Osguthorpe, R. D. (2008). On the reasons we want teachers of good disposition and moral

character. Journal of Teacher Education. 59(4), 288-299.Perkins, D. (2009). Making learning whole: how seven principles of teaching can transform

education. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass. Perkins, D., & Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front. Educational Leadership. 51

(5), 4-7.Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership. 46(1), 22-

32. Popham, W. J. (2007). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Boston:

Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.Rennert-Ariev, P. (2005). A theoretical model for the authentic assessment of teaching.

Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(2), 1-11.Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:

Basic Books.Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence

determine success in life. New York: Simon & Schuster.Vermette, P. J. (1998). Making cooperative learning work: Student teams in K-12 classrooms.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Vermette, P. J. (2009). Engaging teens in their own learning: 8 keys to student success.

Larchmont, NY: Eye-On-Education.Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology.Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Wiske, M. S. (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Author BiographiesDr. Paul J. Vermette is a professor of education at Niagara University. Email: pjv@niagara.edu

Karrie A. Jones is a tenth- and eleventh-grade mathematics teacher at Tapestry High School in Buffalo, New York. Email: karriejones_00@yahoo.com

Jennifer L. Jones is a seventh-grade mathematics teacher at Emmet Belknap Middle School in Lockport, New York. Email: jljones_00@yahoo.com

114

Dr. Donna Kester-Phillips is an associate professor of education at Niagara University. Email: dkphllps@niagara.edu

115

Start New page

Nota Bene

What Are You Reading?:What Members of the NYACTE Executive Board Are Reading

Craig M. Hill, Nazareth CollegeBarbery, M. (2006). The elegance of the hedgehog. Europa, New York.

This French novel presents an excellent exploration of social class, intellectual stereotypes, and commentaries on schooling. This is an enjoyable and humorous story that grabbed my attention when one of the lead characters, Paloma, a 12-year-old-girl plans her suicide when she turns 13. She does not have an interest in entering into an adult world. Most of the novel centers on three lead characters. Madame Michel is the concierge for an upscale apartment building in Paris. She presents a view of this world and the residents in her building. Paloma lives with her family in the apartment building. She gives her view as a child and a student deeply alienated by the world she sees. Paloma brings an insightful view of her teachers and the teaching process that educators would enjoy.

The third key character is Mr. Ozu, a Japanese businessman who recently moves into the apartment complex. Mr. Ozu becomes the great mediator and friend to Madame Michel and Paloma. The story has you enter into intellectual dialogues but engages you in the story of three fascinating characters.

The author, Muriel Barbery, is a French philosophy professor who engages readers in the life of her characters as well as a humorous philosophical analysis of intellectual elitism and social class. While engaging in this view of the world you meet, laugh, and ponder many questions presented by the author’s characters.

I would recommend the book on many levels. In particular, I enjoyed discovering Paloma’s views on schooling. In the end you will laugh with the characters and how they present their world view to us.

***

Joanne M. Curran, SUNY College at OneontaVanSlyke-Briggs, K. (2010). The nurturing teacher: Managing the stress of caring. Lantham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Having a faculty member complete a book is always a cause for celebration, and that book being grounded in theory and including case studies of teachers in the field makes this a must read. The Nurturing Teacher is a theory-based discussion of the nurturing role of teachers, those who care deeply about their students, and a self-help guide to taking care of oneself in light

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 5, Number 1 Fall/Winter 2010 XX

116

Running head from here to end of article should be What Are You Reading?of that deep caring. Dr. Van Slyke-Briggs talks about the nurturing role that is assumed by both men and women and how that role can result in serious and often unrecognized stress that can be debilitating and lead to job burnout. The premise is that the best teachers, those who go beyond delivering content and truly care about their students as much as their subject matter, are most susceptible to nurturance suffering, “the stress and emotional responses that result from nurturing behavior by the teacher in a school setting” (p. 13).

This is a quick-read filled with specific ideas for recognizing and managing stress, encouraging the teacher to take control of his or her reactions to the events of the day. Seven cases are presented, representing an amalgam of middle- and high-school teachers interviewed by Dr. Van Slyke-Briggs over the course of several semesters. Each case includes a short description, vignette, review, and analysis—focused on the nurturance suffering experienced by the teacher and ways to cope with that experience.

This is a great read for student teachers, new teachers, and experienced teachers who are worn out by the demands of the profession. As Stephanie Paterson, another scholar who has addressed the stress of teaching, notes in the foreword, times are changing and the demands on teachers are ever-increasing. This book may provide the essential supports that teachers need to stay the course and remain effective in the schools.

Author BiographiesCraig Hill

Joanne M. Curran, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Educational Psychology and Associate Dean of the Division of Education at SUNY College at Oneonta.

What Professors at Lehman College, City University of New York, Are Reading

Responding to a call to share what we read, we decided to focus on the novel as our genre of choice. We wanted to make the case that reading novels, a genre outside of our respective fields, has application for what we do as professors. Like characters in fiction, professors grapple with complex human relationships and meanings. We discussed whether there was commonality among the novels we chose and discovered the idea of transformation. We look upon transformation as significant, sometimes difficult, change in knowing and understanding, often resulting in change in behavior. It is our hope that we support this kind of transformation in our students as they, too, learn and teach.

***

Abigail McNamee, Department of Early Childhood and Childhood Education Conroy, P. (2009). South of broad. New York: Doubleday.Stockett, K. (2009). The help. New York: G. F. Putnam.

I began reading novels because my mother seemed to prefer that I be neither seen nor heard. What better escape from a careful way of behaving? I crossed over as I escaped into novels and became another person…if not all together. I became tentatively seen and heard as a

117

college student, as a teacher, then as a professor; but, no crossover is perfect. When I slip back into my mother’s perceived preference, novels remain my crossover into the imaginary me who practices a new real me. Two recent novels are in my service.

Conroy’s novels always introduce difficult parents, difficult lives, difficult choices. In South of Broad, Leo, teen then adult, crosses over: from his mother’s preference for his older brother who commits suicide; from the loss of his older brother’s protection; from his own isolation; from an impossible love he lost; from an impossible love he gained; from racist, haughty north of Broad Charleston…to what? To himself as a friend of the unacceptable, to himself befriended, to joy in the random “power of accident and magic in human affairs.”

Stockett’s first novel, The Help, is about a difficult time, the 1960s civil rights movement, and three women in Mississippi—Skeeter, wealthy and White; Aibileen and Minny, Black maids. They work together, first tentatively then zestily, on a secret project that crosses the lines of their town and their lives, putting each of them at risk.

These authors remind the imaginary me that I, too, can practice crossing over from quiet invisibility to being seen and heard, to enjoying accident and magic, to putting myself at risk with others…often unexpected others. If I imagine, then practice, these crossovers in my reading and my teaching, perhaps my students will as well.

***

Penny Prince, Department of MusicVerghese, A. (2009). Cutting for stone. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Sometimes a novel comes along that transports us to a culture foreign to our own, yet allows us to feel as though we live and breathe it ourselves. Cutting for Stone by Abraham Verghese accomplishes this brilliantly. Before I read Verghese, I had little knowledge of the poverty stricken, repressive Ethiopia of Haile Selassi. I knew only a smattering about fistula, syphilis, and diphtheria. Verghese’s characters are so authentic and multi-dimensional, that one is drawn into their land and the practice of medicine.

Dr. Thomas Stone, a British physician, and Sister Mary Joseph Praise, a nurse who has recently taken orders, sail to Addis Ababa in the 1950s. Their goal is to heal the sick in Missing Hospital. (The name was meant to be Mission Hospital, but an accident of fate gave it this significant title.) As Stone and Praise labor to save the neediest in a society with the most primitive medical care, they develop a close professional relationship founded on trust and respect. Their passion extends to the personal, as well. Against all odds and in total secrecy, even to Dr. Stone, Sister Mary Joseph becomes pregnant, and dies during the childbirth of twins Marion and Shiva. Once the secret is revealed, Stone flees in torment and regret, and the orphans are raised by an unforgettable group of physicians and caregivers at the hospital. The brothers grow to love medicine. Through their understanding of this discipline, they learn lessons about their people and their callings in life.

As an educator, I have seen how music eliminates walls between us. Verghese’s compelling story and memorably original characters clearly have that power as well.

***

Andrea Zakin, Department of Early Childhood and Childhood EducationStrout, E. (2008). Olive Kitteridge. New York: Random House.

118

Olive Kitteridge, the central character of Elizabeth Strout’s book of the same name, is not a person you like or want to know. Judgmental, overbearing, and occasionally cruel, she alienates her son and patronizes her husband. The book presents a multifaceted view of Olive so that she becomes a fully realized character, and you can no longer remember a time when you did not know her or have her in your life. Long after the book is finished, Olive Kitteridge remains. That one cares deeply about her is a miraculous transformation that reveals her essential humanity.

What does this book have to do with teaching? Like a good book, teaching can effect a profound change in student perception and understanding that occurs so incrementally that students can no longer remember what it was like not to think as they now do. Just as Olive is revealed in all her prickly complexity, so does teaching reveal the inherent complexity of a particular subject. Just as one feels intimately connected to Olive by the end of the book, so do students similarly feel closely attuned to the process and content of a course by the time they complete it. The multiple viewpoints of student members enrich understanding of a specific topic just as the differing perspectives of the book’s characters deepen our understanding of Olive. This is the way in which we come to know ourselves and extend our comprehension and knowledge of our world.

Change occurs even when we do not realize or especially want it. But we recognize it when it happens. This is the challenge of a good book and good teaching. Olive Kitteridge was a teacher; as such, she is a fitting example of a good book and good teaching.

***

Cecilia M. Espinosa. Department of Early Childhood and Childhood Education Allende, I. (2010). The island beneath the sea. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

In her latest novel, under the genre of “Magical Realism,” Latin American writer Isabel Allende brings us once again the history of the Americas from the female and subaltern perspective. Through her careful descriptions of characters and places, we learn about the cruel realities and complexities of the world of slavery and its riots in Saint-Domingue (now Haiti) towards the end of the 18th century. This thoughtfully crafted narrative continues in New Orleans, where Allende illustrates the ways in which these worlds were already intimately connected. In this story we accompany Zarité in her first 40 years of life. She is a mulatto slave bought at a young age by Valmorain, a wealthy plantation owner. She serves his mentally fragile wife even in her most basic needs and becomes a mother-like figure to the couple’s son Maurice. Given her beauty, Zarité endures Valmorain’s degrading sexual advances for decades. She bears his unrecognized children, while putting aside her love Gambo.

Ultimately, Allende’s novel is the story of a fighter who in spite of being a slave, a mulatto, and a woman in the 18th-century Caribbean, learns from others that one must write one’s own destiny, and dignity must be achieved in spite of circumstances. Her mentors become a healer, a cook, a courtesan, and a casino owner. On her journey she discovers the meaning of community and the importance of organizing. She experiences the power of dance to free body and spirit, even if only momentarily; and she encounters a few White people who challenge the times.

From my perspective as an educator, Allende’s novel highlights the need to include varied perspectives to fill the gaps of the official story.

119

***

Marta A. Ghezzo, Department of MusicMunthe, A. (1929). The story of San Michele. Reprinted in paperback, 2004. New York: Carroll and Graf.

Translated into forty-five languages, The Story of San Michele by Axel Munthe (1857-1949) became one of the best-sellers of the 20th century. The book is based on the author’s biography, and also incorporates elements of fiction.

Within thirty-two chapters, the fascinating life of Swedish doctor Axel Munthe unfolds,starting from when he was 18 years old and first visited the island of Capri. He climbed up to Anacapri where he found the ruins of a chapel named San Michele. He was enchanted by the magnificent view, and started fantasizing about building his dream villa there.

Munthe studied medicine in Paris, and received his M.D. at the age of 26. He became a “fashionable doctor” in France, with a large practice that included high society. Yet his humanitarian nature was revealed by how he treated the poor with compassion. Some of the stories are heart breaking, like that of the French girl dying from typhoid fever and her mother’s suffering. In 1884, during the cholera epidemic in Naples, and in 1898, after the earthquake in Messina, Munthe helped the sick and injured.

In 1887, Munthe bought a piece of land in Anacapri. With the help of the locals, he spent five summers building his Villa San Michele while collecting ancient artifacts dating back to the time of Tiberius. Munthe stayed in Anacapri over five decades. He died at the age of 92.

A few years ago, I was fortunate enough to visit Villa San Michele. I was greatly impressed by Munthe’s precise descriptions of the villa and surroundings, his enthusiasm towards people, and his artistic sense reflected through his writing.

This book is not only entertaining but also reflects humanity, dignity, dedication, perseverance and faith—the qualities of a meaningful life. This book was a great inspiration for me as a teacher.

***

Ralph William Boone, English DepartmentBeah, I. (2007). A long way gone: Memoirs of a boy soldier. New York: Sarah Crichton Books.

A Long Way Gone is the first-person narrative of child-soldier Ishmael Beah. Born in Mogbwemo, Sierra Leone, in 1980, his narrative is a testament to the power of the human spirit to survive degradation, trauma, and drug-induced frenzies, yet, still emerge a healed, complete soul.

On the cusp of adolescence, Ishmael, with his older brother and friend Talloi, head off to walk the sixteen miles to Mattru Jong to enter their rap and hip-hop act in a talent competition. Dressed in “T-shirts,…soccer jerseys,…baggy jeans, and underneath them…. soccer shorts and sweatpants,” little did Ishmael expect that he would soon trade in these clothes for army shorts, cocaine mixed with gunpowder, machine guns, RPGs, and his new best friend, an AK-47 rifle. Thus at age 13, Beah is forcibly drafted into the chillingly surreal world of the child-soldier. For four years he is taught to revel in the degradation of senseless killing and to depend on his new squad family for comfort.

When one day he is removed by UNICEF from his new family and taken to the capital city, Freetown, for rehabilitation, he resents it bitterly and at first struggles fiercely to return to

120

his squad. As he battles against the sudden trauma of detoxification, Ishmael sheds the effects of marijuana and cocaine, and, with the understanding of an endlessly patient nurse, learns to unlock “the fastened mantle” of his war memories and to reclaim his humanity.

This memoir chronicles the journey of a tenderly human soul lost and then found. As happens with many transformations in life, Ishmael needed the unwavering belief and support of a caring stranger to reach his fulfillment. His story inspires me to create the best teacher-student relationships I can.

Author BiographiesAbigail McNamee, Ed.D., Ph.D., is Professor of Early Childhood and Chair of the Department of Early Childhood and Childhood Education at Lehman College, CUNY.  Her research and writing include children and stress (divorce, death, and adoption), children's conceptualization of reading and of cultural group; as well as poetry, screenplay, play writing, and children's picture books. Email: abigail.mcnamee@lehman.cuny.edu

Penny Prince, Ph. D., is Assistant Professor of Music at Lehman College, CUNY. She is a pianist and composer of numerous musicals. Her research interests include collaborative musical theater and developing strategies to motivate students through the use of student cues. E-mail: catchymusic1@aol.com

Andrea Zakin, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Art Education at Lehman College, City University of New York in the Bronx, New York. Her artwork focuses on psychological and political interpretations of myth and fairytale, and her research is concerned with aesthetic education and the cognitive dimensions of art instruction and production. Email: andrea.zakin@lehman.cuny.edu

Cecilia M. Espinosa, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Education at Lehman College, CUNY in the Bronx, New York. Her research interests include bilingualism and biliteracy, inquiry and reflective practice, and collaborative action research in urban multilingual settings. E-mail: cecilia.espinosa@lehman.cuny.edu

Marta A. Ghezzo, Ph.D., is Professor of Music at Lehman College, CUNY. Herspecialization is Musicology, Theory, and Ear Training. She delivered Master classesin the United States and abroad (Rome, Montevarchi, Perugia, Helsinki, Jerusalem, Seoul, Odessa,and other sites). She is the author of Solfège, Ear Training, Dictation, Rhythm and MusicTheory (UAP, 3rd ed., 2005), which is also translated into Korean (Seoul: EumagChunchu Publications, 2000), and Italian (G. Ricordi & C.s.p.a., Milan, 1985). E-mail: martaghezzo@hotmail.com

Ralph William Boone, MPA, MA, has been an adjunct lecturer in the Department of English at Lehman College for the past four years. He is a key instructor and mentor in the Freshman Year Initiative Program, which assists freshmen with the transition between high school and college. His professional research interest is the history of Blacks in Russia dating from Ovid to the present. He is also an accomplished singer and musical theater performer. Email: ralphwmboone@hotmail.com

121

Start New PageBook Review of The Edutainer: Connecting the Art and Science of Teaching By Brad Johnson and Tammy Maxson McElroy (2010). Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Penina A. KaminaSUNY College at Oneonta

The title of the book contains a new, unique word, the “edutainer,” which happens to be a prefix and a suffix combination of the words educator and entertainer. The title, The Edutainer, is a summary of the metaphor used throughout this book. The educator is seen as having the same roles as the entertainer: performing very well and leaving an impressive mark on learners. Johnson and McElroy propose there are several common threads between the two professions that teachers should simulate in this Information Age to fully involve and submerge the learner in instruction. Besides the theme of the entire book, the term edutainer also refers to teachers in general. This reference includes the authors, who are perceptive teachers, as they share experiences that have made a difference and impact in the lives of learners.

The book is arranged in seven scenes that are grouped into three acts. It has also two intermissions, a finale, and the encore. Act I, the vision, covers Scenes 1 and 2. Act II, the rehearsal, covers Scenes 3, 4, and 5; and Act III, the performance, deals with the last two scenes. In the American society, entertainment and art forms a huge part of the culture. Given also the prevailing technological advances, it is imperative that educational institutions integrate the entertainment skills of vision, preparation, communication, and performance. The teacher is no longer the only source of information. The role of teacher has become that of a facilitator.

In Scene 1, the authors make the case that when culture changes, education ought to change also to be relevant and “relatable” (p. 10) as modeled within the business world, within technology, and even religion (although I may disagree with this one). They stress that education should go beyond sitting still, taking notes, and memorizing information for a test. They outline in details the roles of the teacher as follows: (1) focuses on building students’ relationships and interpersonal abilities; (2) works with parents and the community, for a “stellar performance.” (3) makes school relevant to a learner’s current life (i.e., by assigning learners responsibilities to actively take ownership of learning); and (4) collaborates with colleagues or, in their words, “partners in crime.” Scene 2 deals with the leadership characteristics required of the 21st-century teacher. These characteristics include developing confidence; planning; maintaining a healthy lifestyle; continually seeking professional growth; being proactive; incorporating humor, passion, professionalism, reflection, flexibility, and vulnerability; and empowering others.

Scene 3 is about planning instruction and the organization of the physical classroom environment. The authors have done an excellent job in bulleting organizational ideas for the start of an academic year, describing the classroom routines to be established on pages 57 to 72.

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 5, Number 1 Fall/Winter 2010 XX

122

Running head from here to end of article should be Kamina “From the first act to the closing of the curtain, no class is left to chance” (p. 72). Scene 4 lays out organizational details and strategies that are, achievable and doable for all educators. Scene 5 looks at classroom management and discusses the concept of multi-management as instrumental in being efficient and effective both inside and outside of class.

In Scene 6, the authors point out the significance of maintaining proper communication with students, parents, principal, and partners (fellow colleagues) by being a keen listener, orator, performer, and speaker. This may require knowing the audience very well. For instance, a student might require two invitations to a school function due to the parents’ divorce or separation. The authors emphasize being real, vulnerable, realistic, firm, and authentic with appropriate perspectives. Lastly, Scene 7 explores the teaching philosophy educators should possess as the authors share their views here, too. On page 147 onwards to the end of Scene 7, they explore the process in the “tiers of instruction.” These tiers consist of a foundational, personalization, and transformation levels. On page 150, Johnson and McElroy provide a visual of an arrow that ascends upward. I found this graphic could have been more helpful if it were accompanied with a scale and label for in-depth interpretation.

Intermission 1 and 2 give suggestions of field-tested ideas, activities, and games a teacher can use during down time. Extensions and authentic tasks such as having a guest speaker, alumni, special groups, local police, or fire department to bridge the gap between school and real life are provided.

Throughout The Edutainer, both the subtle and non-subtle tools of the education “trade” and skills are enlisted. The appendix (aka “encore”) alone has approximately forty classroom ideas in a condensed form that range from charts and a parent contact sheet to portfolio suggestions for elementary students. As a teacher, you may want to email the authors to attach the encore portion to you electronically. Teachers can either use the materials as is or adapt certain sections to suit their context and situation.

The Edutainer is a practical book. It covers a great deal of helpful information that a practicing teacher should know. It includes memorable mnemonics (i.e., D.E.A.R. mnemonic for Drop Everything and Read), wise sayings, did-you-know facts, strategies that work for the diverse American classroom (i.e., the 3 Rs, the 4 Ps, the 5 Ws), and an explanation of Dyknow (a technology tool for checking out credible sources), as opposed to the “bells and whistles.”

This book is a practical enumeration of the art and science of teaching that all teachers, be they either beginners or mature teachers, should read. Educators will want to keep a copy of the book for reference. The book discusses the educational profession or trade in a captivating way and uses simple language and theatrical imagery. It reminds us that some education facts may be the same from antiquity to date, but there is an urgent call to tweak these facts to suit the current needs.

Author BiographyPenina Kamina, Ph.D is Assistant Professor of Mathematics Education at SUNY College at Oneonta, New York. Her current research interests include preservice teachers’ mathematical content and pedagogical maturation and programming with elementary students on Lego Robotics. She views mathematics teaching and learning as negotiation of meanings with the expert as a facilitator. Email: kaminapa@oneonta.edu

123

Start New PageBook Review of In the Public Eye By Joanne Kilgour Dowdy (2009). Boardman, OH: Commess University Press.

Kjersti VanSlyke-Briggs and Carol S. DeanSUNY College at Oneonta

Although I (Kjersti) was familiar with the writings of Joanne Kilgour Dowdy, it was not until 2007 that I had the opportunity to meet her in person. She was an invited guest speaker to my campus in Oneonta and because I was part of the committee that brought her, I was able to go to dinner with her and other members of the group. We went to a local restaurant that attempts to capture in upstate New York what eating at a Texas ranch must be. The dining room is adorned with a diverse collection of taxidermy animals and the fare has a focus on all things steak. As a part time vegetarian, I was immediately worried and did not want to appear a simpleton. My first impressions of Joanne Dowdy were that she was regal. Her posture was perfect, her articulation precise, and she looked poised to take the throne. I, on the other hand, was not. Once we went to take our seats, however, she set everyone at ease with one simple joke. Finding no place to hang our coats, she joked that, “there must be some antlers someplace.”

Sadly, I was forced to miss her lecture. As we entered the ballroom where she was to speak, I received a frantic call from my husband that our toddler had come down with the flu and threw up literally all over the car, the house, and him. Explaining my excuses to Joanne, she encouraged me to go be with my daughter and noted that I was needed more there.

It is this same unrestrained graciousness, wit, and beauty that we—Kjersti and Carol—feel is captured in the autobiographical text, In the public eye. Dowdy’s book invites the reader to not only be a temporary voyeur into her life, but also to engage with this life telling through her weaving of photo, quotes, newspaper clips, artifact documents, and narrative. There is honesty in each image and Dowdy befriends the reader on every page. As was stated by Lisa Allen-Agostini of the “Trinidad Guardian” in 2000 of Dowdy’s one-woman show, Dowdy tells her tale, “well and joyously; that she the little girl complaining about always having to be good, could grow up good, or bad, and shrug within her skin, content with what she is” (Dowdy, 2009, p. 113). In the public eye reveals this in the author and follows her development from a young child in Trinidad to the professorial position she holds now at Kent State. This is a life lived on the stage, in front of the camera, on television, on bookshelves, and at the front of a classroom.While all the photos are striking, perhaps the one with the most impact for us is titled, “Dark Offering” and displays an image of Dowdy on stage, in a black-and-white photo, head back and arms flung wide in movement (p. 63). It is contrast, movement, power, and vulnerability all in one quick image. With no other context associated with the photo, it leaves the viewer to make his or her own assumptions. One can read into the image the emotions, story, and meaning that is unique to each person’s telling and background. This photo speaks volumes about not only this text, but about the author. She is a natural force acting upon those who are touched by her work.

124

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 5, Number 1 Fall/Winter 2010 XX

Running head from here to end of article should be VanSlyke-Briggs and DeanThe book closes with a photo of three of her Trinidad teachers standing side by side in

dresses, hats, and gloves. The image captivates a time long gone that is still alive in the work of once pupil and now teacher, Joanne Kilgour Dowdy.

For many years now, education researchers and philosophers have been extolling the merits of reflective practice (Cochran-Smith, 1993; Ross, 1992; Schön, 1983, 1991). Dowdy’s book shares her reflections with the reader: how she has led her life in response to them and why she is the person and professor she is today. Dowdy’s book is an engaging example of the value of narrative and autobiography in teaching. Witherell (1991) appreciates the power of story and metaphor in offering up possibilities for human action and feeling.

Whether inventing, reading, or listening to stories, reading or writing journals and autobiographies, conducting oral history interviews, or engaging in therapeutic dialogues, the teller or receiver of stories can discover connections between self and other, penetrate barriers to understanding, and come to know more deeply the meanings of his or her own historical and cultural narrative. Story and metaphor provide a form of educational encounter that renders us human and frees the moral imagination. (p. 94)

The Public Eye presents possibilities for teachers and students alike to draw upon their own life stories as they develop as learners and learning communities. As Palmer (2000) appreciates, by listening to our lives and letting them speak, we can become ourselves; that is what Dowdy has done through The Public Eye.

ReferencesCochran-Smith, & Lytle, S. (Eds.). (1993). Inside outside: Teacher research and knowledge.

New York: Teachers College Press.Palmer, P. (2000). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.Ross, E., Cornett, J., & McCutcheon, G. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting

curriculum practice, theory, and research. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schön, D. (Ed.). (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Witherell, C. (1991). The self in narrative: A journey into paradox. In C. Witherell & N. Noddings (Eds.), Stories lives tell: Narrative and dialogue in education (pp. 83-95). New York: Teachers College Press.

Author BiographiesKjersti VanSlyke-Briggs is Assistant Professor at the State University of New York Oneonta

where she teaches in the Secondary Education Department.  Her research focus is in English education and literacy.  She is Past-President of the New York State English

125

Council, and her publications include The Nurturing Teacher: Managing the Stress of Caring (2010, Rowman & Littlefield Education). Email: vanslykb@oneonta.edu.

Carol S. Dean, Ed.D. joined the State University of New York at Oneonta as Assistant Professor of Foreign Language Education in 2008. Prior to that, she was a middle-school French teacher for 10 years and an administrator for 8 years. Her research interests include teacher identity and the relationship between teacher expectations and student achievement. Email: deancs@oneonta.edu.

126

New page. No running head

Call for Manuscripts

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning provides a forum to explore issues related to teaching and learning at public and independent colleges and universities with programs in teacher preparation. Excelsior solicits original, thought-provoking manuscripts of various formats, including papers presenting research on issues and practices important to teacher education and in-depth discussions of perspectives on issues and practices that contribute to the preparation and professional development of educators. A third format—Nota Bene—contains brief, focused articles; book reviews; website or technology recommendations; and a What Are You Reading? feature.

Deadlines for submission:June 1 for the fall/winter edition

December 1 for the spring/summer edition

See also projected deadline for our upcoming Special Topic Issue.

Manuscript Preparation and Submission

To submit a manuscript to be considered for review Send an electronic file compatible with Microsoft Word as an e-mail attachment to the editor,

Cynthia Lassonde, at Lassonc@oneonta.edu. Manuscripts must follow APA style as outlined in the most recent edition of the APA style

manual. Research and Perspectives manuscripts should not exceed 25 pages, including references.

Nota Bene manuscripts should not exceed 5 pages, including references. Include a 100-word abstract for Research and Perspectives manuscripts. The cover page should consist of the title of the manuscript, a suggested running head, as

well as the authors’ names, affiliations, addresses, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers. Omit headers and footers except for page numbers. Omit all identifiers of the authors and affiliations from the manuscript. Be sure computer

software does not reveal author’s identity as well. Secure all permissions to quote copyrighted text or use graphics and/or figures of other non-

original material. Include permissions with manuscript. Data-based manuscripts involving human subjects should be submitted with a statement or

verification from the author that an Institutional Review Board certificate or letter approving the research and guaranteeing protection of human subjects has been obtained from the researcher's institution.

Manuscripts will be subject to a blind review by peer reviewers and the editor. The review process will take approximately three months from time of submission.

All manuscripts will be judged on their scholarship, contribution to the knowledge base, timeliness of topic, creative/thoughtful approach, clarity and cohesiveness, appropriateness to

127

category, and adherence to preparation guidelines. Selections may also be affected by editorial decisions regarding the overall content of a particular edition.

CALL FOR NOTA BENE’S “WHAT ARE YOU READING?” FEATURE

Send us a short description of the professional book you have read recently. Tell us, what are you reading and what do you think of it? Would you recommend it to other teacher educators? Why? How has it informed your practice, your research,

or yourself as a teacher educator? Brief, focused articles; book reviews; or website or technology recommendations

are also requested for this section.

Deadlines for submission:June 1 for the fall/winter edition

December 1 for the spring/summer edition

CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS FOR SPECIAL TOPIC ISSUE:Instructional Technology in Teacher Education

How are teacher education programs preparing teachers for the 21st century classroom?        Why, or in what ways, is instructional technology important to teaching?

Deadline June 1, 2011With Guest Consultant Editors

Gary DeBolt, Ed.D., Associate Professor, Education

Roberts Wesleyan College, Rochester, New York,and

Sarah McPherson, Ph.D.,Chair, Instructional Technology

New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, New York

Topics may include (but are not limited to) What new technologies are most useful as preservice teachers prepare for their teaching

careers? How do teacher education preparation programs incorporate new instructional

technologies in their programs? What does research tell us about effective uses of new technologies to improve student

learning and teaching? What are effective uses of online courses in teacher education? What knowledge and skills should teacher education programs provide for assessing

effects of technology on learning in the classroom? What should teachers know about technology for students with special needs? What challenges do teacher education programs face in preparing teachers for applying

instructional technology in their teaching careers?

128

How are teacher education programs addressing the following new technologies for use in classrooms?

Social networking (Facebook, MySpace, etc.)Web 2.0 tools (wikis, blogs, and nings)Gaming, virtual worlds, and alternative realitiesStudent Response SystemsInteractive presentation systems (SmartBoards, etc.)Cell phones, iPods, or other mobile devices

How should teacher education programs prepare teachers to negotiate legal, ethical, and equitable uses of technology in classrooms?

What are effective teacher preparation models for university and K-12 collaboration? What are future trends for using technology in teaching and learning?

129

Start new pageExcelsior:

Leadership in Teaching and Learning

A forum for research-based discourse to inform the preparation and professional development of educators

Yearly Subscription (2 issues) $30Contact Editor for Library Subscription Rate

Lassonc@oneonta.edu

Make checks payable to NYACTE. Mail check with information below to

Cindy LassondeEditor, Excelsior

SUNY College at Oneonta501 Fitzelle Hall

Oneonta, NY 13820

Your Name ________________________________________________________

Mailing Address ___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

Email Address ______________________________________________________

130